%  %.¥ 


Wl 


n 


t.f 


•n^^^^Hf  m 

w 

1 

V 

hH^^^^^I 

'li ' 
J 

!ii'    ' 

''^tHui^^^H 

\^  P^^^^H 

li'      ' 

^^1 

1  ^i^^^^^^^^^i 

h 

j^m 

nnnfll 

PRINCETON  •  NEW  JERSEY 


•a^t- 


PRESENTED  BY 

:ieill  G-.    Stevens 


BX  9424  .F52  1851 

Fisk,  Wilbur,  1792-1839 

Calvinistic  controversy 


A. 


CALVINISTIC  C 


EMBBACINO 


A  SERMON  ON  PREDESTINATION  AND  ELECTION 


SEVERAL  NUilBERS  ON  THE  SAME  SUBJECT, 


ORIGINALLY    PUBLISHED    IN    THE    CHRISTIAN    ADVOCATE    AND   JOURNAL. 


BY    REV.    WILBUR    FISK,    D.  D 

PEE8IDENT   or   WESLEYAN    UNIVERSITY. 


'Ntm^'^oxk : 


PUBLISHED    BY   LANE    &    SCOTT, 

200  Mulberry-street. 
JOSEPH    LONOKING,    PRINTER. 

1861. 


/ 


"  Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  m  the  year  1835,  by  B.  Waugh 
andT.  Mason,  in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  Southern 
District  of  New-York," 


CONTENTS 


CALVINISTIC  CONTROVERSY. 


Advertisement Page  5 

Sermon  on  Predestination  and  Election 7 

No.  I.  Reply  to  the  Christian  Spectator 55 

II.  A  proposition  to  Calvinists 71 

III.  Indefiniteness  of  Calvinism 78 

IV.  Brief  sketch  of  the  past  changes  and  present  state 

of  Calvinism  in  this  country 85 

V.  Same  subject  continued -   ....     93 

VI.  Predestination .   102 

VII.  Predestination,  continued 114 

VIII.  Moral  agency  and  accountability 129 

IX.  Moral  agency  and  accountability,  continued    .     .143 

X.  Moral   agency   as   affected   by  the  fall,  and    the 
subsequent  provisions  of  grace 159 

XI.  Same  subject  continued .   178 

XII.  Objections  to  gracious  ability  answered    .     .     .  197 

XIII.  Regeneration .  219 

XIV.  Regeneration,  continued 235 

XV.  Regeneration,  continued 252 


ADVERTISEMENT 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 


The  numbers  following  the  sermon  on  predestina- 
tion and  election  were  written  at  diiferent  times,  and 
in  some  instances  at  quite  distant  intervals  from  each 
other.  This  will  be  received,  it  is  hoped,  as  an 
apology  for  any  want  of  connection  or  uniformity  of 
style  which  the  reader  may  notice.  And  if  any 
farther  apology  be  necessary,  it  may  be  found  in  the 
fact,  that  the  entire  contents  of  the  volume  as  it  is  now 
presented,  were  written  in  the  midst  of  other  pressing 
duties.  And  the  same  reason  has  prevented  my 
giving  the  work  such  a  thorough  revision  as  it  should 
have  had,  before  it  was  presented  to  the  public,  in  the 
more  set  and  imposing  form  of  a  book.  Such  a  form 
was  not  originally  thought  of — and  now  that  this  is 
called  for,  the  author  is  well  aware  that  the  public 
might  expect  a  careful  revision  and  correction  of  the 
whole.  From  this,  however,  he  must,  of  necessity^  be 
excused.  He  has  been  able  to  do  little  more  than 
correct  the  typographical  errors.  If  the  public  have  it, 
therefore,  it  must  go  "  with  all  its  imperfections  on  its 


6         ADVERTISEMENT CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

head."  Only  let  it  be  understood  that  I  do  not  se?id 
it  out.  The  publishers  say  it  is  called  for ;  and  I 
consent  that  it  may  go.  The  doctrines,  I  believe,  will 
stand  the  test  of  reason  and  Scripture,  although  some 
of  the  arguments  by  which  they  are  defended  may  be 
found  defective. 

It  was  my  original  design  to  have  added  one  or  two 
immbers  on  election ;  but  upon  farther  reflection,  it 
appeared  to  me  that  enough  had  been  said  in  the 
sermon  on  that  point ;  and  that  at  any  rate,  if  Calvinian 
predestination,  and  the  Calvinistic  views  of  moral 
agency  and  regeneration,  were  found  to  be  fallacious, 
the  whole  superstructure  must  fall  of  course.  On 
these  points,  therefore,  we  may  safely  rest  the  entire 
question  between  us  and  the  Calvinists. 

W.  FisK. 

Wesleyan  University,  April  28,  1835. 


A  DISCOURSE 


PREDESTINATION  AND  ELECTION. 


"  According  as  he  hath  chosen  us  in  him  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world,  that  we  should  be  holy  and  without  blame  before 
him  in  love. 

"  Having  predestinated  us  unto  the  adoption  of  children,  by  Jesus 
Christ,  to  himself,  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  his  will," 
Ephesians  i,  4,  5. 

In  this  passage  the  Idndred  doctrines  of  predestina- 
tion and  election  are  brought  into  view.  To  discuss 
them,  to  notice  some  errors  respecting  them,  and  to 
exhibit  what  is  beUeved  to  be  the  scriptural  and  rational 
view  of  these  doctrines,  is  the  proposed  object  of  the 
present  discourse.  In  doing  this,  much  that  is  new 
cannot  be  expected.  The  whole  ground  of  this  con- 
troversy  has  been  examined  and  re-examined  ;  and  the 
various  arguments,  on  both  sides,  have  been  urged  and 
opposed  by  the  most  able  polemics  in  philosophy  and 
theology.  The  most,  therefore,  that  can  now  be  ex- 
pected, is  to  give  a  concise  view  of  the  subject,  in  a 
form  and  manner  suited  to  the  present  state  of  the 
controversy,  and  to  the  circumstances  of  the  present 
congregation. 

It  is  hoped,  at  least,  that  the  subject  may  be  inves- 
tigated in  the  spirit  of  Christianity ;  and  that  there 
will  be  no  loss  of  brotherly  and  Christian  candour,  if 
there  be  no  gain  on  the  side  of  truth.  Yet,  in  a  desire 
to  give  no  offence,  I  must  not  suppress  the  truth,  nor 


8  CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY 


m 


neglect  to  point  out,  as  I  am  able,  the  absurdity  of  error, 
and  its  unprofitable  influences  on  the  minds  of  those 
who  propagate  or  receive  it.  The  truth  should  be 
spoken,  but  it  should  be  spoken  in  love.  Neither  the 
subject,  nor  the  age,  nor  the  occasion,  will  admit  of 
temporizing.  With  these  views,  we  come  to  our 
subject,  by  examining, 

I.  Predestination  in  general ; 

II.  Predestination,  in  its  particular  relation  to  the 
doctrine  of  election. 

I.  By  predestination  we  understand  an  efficient  pre 
determination  to  bring  about  or  accomplish  any  future 
event.  But  as  God  alone  has  knowledge  to  compre- 
hend futurity,  and  power  to  direct  and  control  future 
events,  predestination,  in  a  jyTorier  and  strict  sense, 
can  only  be  used  in  reference  to  him.  And  with 
respect  to  God,  predestination  is  that  efficient  determi- 
nation which  he  has  maintained  from  eternity  respect- 
ing the  control,  direction,  and  destiny  of  the  laws, 
events,  and  creatures  of  the  universe.  That  God  hath 
a  predetermination  of  this  kind,  there  can  be  no  doubt ; 
and  therefore,  on  this  fact,  there  can  be  no  dispute. 
But  the  ground  of  controversy  is,  the  unlimited  extent 
to  which  some  have  carried  this  idea  of  predestination. 
Calvin,  on  this  subject,  says,  "  Every  action  and  motion 
of  every  creature  is  governed  by  the  hidden  counsel 
of  God,  so  that  nothing  can  come  to  pass,  but  was 
ordained  by  him."  The  Assembly's  Catechism  is 
similar : — "  God  did,  from  all  eternity,  unchangeably 
ordain  whatever  comes  to  pass."  And  Mr.  Buck  de- 
fines predestination  to  mean  "the  decree  of  God, 
whereby  he  hath,  for  his  own  glory,  foreordained 
whatever  comes  to  pass."  With  these  definitions, 
which,  it  is  seen,  are  the  same  in  substance,  agree  all 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  9 

the  Calvinistic  divines  in  Europe  and  America.  To 
this  view  of  predestination,  others,  and  we  confess  our- 
selves of  that  number,  have  objected.  We  believe  that 
the  character  and  acts  of  intelHgent  beings,  so  far  at 
least  as  their  moral  accountability  is  concerned,  are 
not  definitely  fixed,  and  efiiciently  produced,  by  the 
unalterable  purpose  and  efficient  decree  of  God.  Here, 
therefore,  we  are  at  issue.  We  believe,  with  the  rigid 
predestinarians,  that  God  hath  lixed  the  laws  of  the 
physical  and  moral  world,  and  that  he  liath  a  general 
plan,  suited  to  all  the  various  circumstances  and  con- 
tingencies of  his  government ;  but  that  it  is  no  part  of 
this  plan  efficiently  to  control  arid  actuate  the  human 
will.  So  far,  therefore,  as  thdse  ultra-predestinarians 
go  beyond  us,  they  affirm  ^vrhat  we  deny ;  and  of  course 
the  burden  of  proci:'  f^Hs  upon  them.  We  shall  first, 
then,  hear  and  answer  the  arguments  in  defence 
of  their  system,  and  then  bring  up  our  arguments 

against  it.* 

The  supporters  of  this  system  endeavour  to  establish 
their  views  by  a  threefold  argument — the  foreknow- 
ledo-e  of  God — the  necessity  of  a  plan — and  Scripture 
testimony. 

*  Many  objections  have  been  made,  by  the  reviewers,  to  my 
manner  of  stating  the  doctrine  of  predestination.  It  is  objected, 
that  the  great  body  of  Calvinists  believe,  no  more  than  the  Armi- 
nians,  that  God  "  efficiently  controls  and  actuates  the  human  will." 
On  a  careful,  and  I  hope,  candid  revision  of  the  subject,  however, 
I  cannot  satisfy  m^yself  that  the  objection  is  valid.  I  am  quite  sure 
God  must  control  the  will,  or  he  cannot,  as  Calvinists  teach,  secure 
the  proposed  end,  by  the  prescribed  means.  It  is  readily  granted 
that  Calvinists  deny  such  a  control  as  destroys  the  freedom  of  the 
will.  But  it  is  the  object  of  the  sermon  and  of  the  following  con- 
troversy to  show  that  Calvinistic  predestination  is,  on  any  ground 
of  consistency,  utterly  irreconcilable  with  mental  freedom.  How 
far  this  has  been  done,  of  course,  each  will  judge  for  himself. 

1* 


10  CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY. 

1.  The  first  argument  is  founded  on  foreknowledge. 
It  is  sometimes  contended  that  predestination  and  fore- 
knowledge are  the  same.     This,  however,  by  the  more 
judicious,  is  not  now  insisted  on.     For  it  is  self-evi- 
dent, that  to  know,  and  to  decree,  are  distinct  opera- 
tions ;  and  to  every  one  acquainted  with  the  common 
definition  of  the  terms  they  must  convey  distinct  and 
difierent  ideas.     And  if  these  are  distinct  operations  in 
the  human  mind,  they  must   be  also  in  the  divine 
mind,  unless  it  ca,n  be  shown  that  these  terms,  when 
applied  to  God,  have  an  entirely  difierent  meaning  from 
that  by  which  they  are  understood  among  men.     And 
as  this  cannot  be  pxc^tended,  the  more  common  and 
plausible  argument  is,  tlwt  the  foreknowledge  of  God 
necessarily  implies  predestiaation.     "  For  how,"  they 
ask,  "  can  an  action  that  is  really  to  come  to  pass,  be 
foreseen,  if  it  be  not  determined'.^    God  foreknew 
every  thing  from  the  beginning  ;  but  this  he  could  not 
have  known,  if  he  had  not  so  determined  it."     "  God," 
says  Piscator,  "  foresees  nothing  but  what  he  has  do 
creed,  and  his  decree  precedes  his  knowledge."     And 
Calvin  say^,  "  God  therefore  foreknows  all  things  that 
will  come  to  pass,  because  he  has  decreed  they  shall 
come  to  pass."     But  to  this  idea  there  are  insuperable 
objections.     Prescience  is  an  essential  attribute  of  the 
divine  nature.     But  a  determination  to  do  this  or  that 
is  not  essential  to  the  divine  nature.     For  aught  we 
can  see,  God  might  determine  to  make  a  particular 
planet  or  not  to  make  it,  and  in  either  case  the  perfec 
tion  of  his  nature  is  not  affected.     But  to  know  is  so 
essential  to  him,  that  the  moment  he  ceases  to  know 
all  that  is,  or  will  be,  or  might  be,  under  any  possible 
contingency,  he  ceases  to  be  God.     Is  it  not  absurd, 
then,  to  say  the  least,  to  make  an  essential  attribute  of 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY,  H 

Deity  depend  upon  the  exercise  of  his  attributes  ? — the 
divine  prescience  depend  upon  his  decrees  and  deter- 
minations ?  It  would  seem,  by  this  argument,  that,  if 
not  in  the  order  of  time,  at  least  in  the  order  of  thous^ht, 
and  in  the  order  of  cause  and  effect,  the  exercise  of  an 
attribute  preceded  the  attribute  itself ;  and,  in  short,  the 
attribute  must  be  exercised,  as  a  cause,  to  bring  it  into 
existence  !  To  this  monstrous  conclusion  we  are  led 
by  following  out  this  argument.  And  connected  with 
it  is  another  equally  monstrous  and  absurd.  If  God 
must  predetermine  events  in  order  to  know  them,  then, 
as  the  cause  is  in  no  case  dependent  on  the  effect,  the 
decrees  of  God  must  be  passed  and  his  plan  contrived, 
ifidependently  of  his  knowledge,  which  only  had  an 
existence  as  the  effect  of  these  decrees.  What  must 
be  the  character  of  that  plan,  and  of  those  decrees, 
which  were  formed  and  matured  without  knowledge, 
we  will  not  stop  to  examine,  for  the  idea  borders  too 
closely  upon  the  ludicrous  to  be  dwelt  upon  in  a  seri- 
ous discourse.  And  yet  I  cannot  see  how  this  conclu- 
sion can  be  avoided,  reasoning  from  such  premises. 
It  seems  to  us,  therefore,  altogether  more  consistent  to 
consider  that,  in  the  order  of  cause  and  effect,  the  ex- 
ercise of  the  divine  attributes  is  consequent  upon  their 
existence ;  and  that  the  plan  of  the  Almighty  is  the 
result  of  his  infinite  knowledge  ;  and  that  the  decrees 
of  his  throne  flow  forth  from  the  eternal  fountain  of 
his  Avisdom.  This  idea,  moreover,  accords  with  the 
Scriptures  : — "  For  whom  he  did  foreknow,  he  also  did 
predestinate  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  his  Son ;'' 
"Elect  accordino:  to  the  foreknowledo^e  of  God  the 
Father."  In  these  passages  predestination  and  the 
decree  of  election  are  most  clearly  founded  on  fore- 
knowledge.    This,  therefore,  must  settle  the  question  : 


12  CALVINISTIC  CONTROVERSY. 

God  foreknows  in  order  to  predestinate  ;  but  he  does 
not  predestinate  in  order  to  foreknow.* 

But  foreknowledge  is  pressed  into  this  argument  in 
another  form.  "  The  foreknowledge  of  God,"  it  is 
said,  '•'  is  tantamount  to  a  decree  ;  because,  inasmuch 
as  God  cannot  be  in  a  mistake,  whatever  he  foreknows 
must  take  place — his  knowledge  makes  it  certain." 
This  is  indeed  shifting  the  argument ;  for  if  God's 
knowledge  makes  an  event  certain,  of  course  it  is  not 
his  predetermination.  But,  according  to  this  notion, 
every  thing  contained  in  the  idea  of  predestination  is 
implied  in  foreknowledge,  which  is  only  throwing  the 
subject  back  on  the  ground  first  glanced  at,  that 
knowledge  and  decree  are  both  one,  which  is  obvi- 
ously absurd.  Besides,  such  an  idea  would  make  the 
scriptures  that  represent  God's  foreknowledge  as  dis- 
tinct from  his  decree  and  antecedent  to  it,  worse  than 
unmeaning  :  "  Whom  he  did  foreknow,  them  he  did 
predestinate,''  would  mean,  "  whom  he  did  predestinate, 
them  he  did  predestinate" — and,  "  Elect  according  to 
the  foreknowledge  of  God,"  would  only  mean,  ''that 
the  decree  of  election  was  according  to  the  decree  of 
election !"  the  absurdity  of  which  is  too  apparent  to 

*  It  seems  to  the  author  of  the  sermon  but  little  better  than 
trifling,  to  object,  as  some  have,  to  this  argument  on  foreknowledge, 
that  '*  God  must  predetermine  his  works  before  he  could  certainly 
know  what  would  take  place  ;  and  hence,  in  the  order  of  cause  and 
effect,  he  must  decree  in  order  to  know."  •  It  is  readily  conceded, 
that,  in  the  order  of  nature,  the  divine  Being  could  not  foreknow 
that  a  world  would  certainly  exist,  until  he  had  determined  to 
create  it.  But  was  there  no  prescience  back  of  this  1  Did  he  de- 
termine to  create  a  universe,  independent  of  a  view  of  all  the 
bearings  in  the  case  %  If  so,  he  created  at  random  and  in  ignorance. 
If  not,  then  a  view  of  all  the  results  preceded  his  determination  to 
create ;  and  thus  we  are  led  irresistibly  to  the  doctrine  of  the  ser- 
mon, that  "  God  foreknows  in  order  to  predestinate." 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  13 

need  comment.  And  it  may  be  urged,  farther,  in 
reply  to  this  argument,  that  knowledge  or  foreknow- 
ledge cannot,  in  the  nature  of  things,  have  the  least 
possible  influence  in  making  an  event  certain.  It  is 
not  at  all  diflicult  to  conceive  how  the  certainty  of  an 
event  can  beget  knowledge  ;  but  if  any  one  thinks  that 
knowledge  is  the  cause  of  certainty,  let  him  show  it — 
to  me  such  a  connection  is  inconceivable.  Whatever 
God  foreknows  or  foresees,  will  undoubtedly  come  to 
pass.  But  the  simple  question  is.  Does  the  event  take 
place  because  it  is  foreknown,  or  is  it  foreknown  be- 
cause it  will  take  place  ?  Or,  in  other  words.  Does 
God  know  an  event  to  be  certain  because  it  is  certain, 
or  does  his  knowing  it  to  be  certain  make  it  certain  ? 
The  question,  thus  stated,  at  once  suggests  the  true 
answer  ;  for  he  would  be  considered  a  fool  or  a  mad- 
man who  should  seriously  assert  that  a  knowledge  of 
a  certainty  produced  that  certainty.  According  to 
that,  a  certainty  must  exist  in  order  to  be  forelmown  ; 
and  it  must  be  foreknown  in  order  to  exist !  From 
all  which  it  appears  that  foreknowledge  can  have  no 
influence  in  making  a  future  event  certain.  Since, 
therefore,  foreknowledge  is  not  predestination  ;  and 
does  not,  according  to  Scripture  or  reason,  follow  pre- 
destination as  a  consequence,  and  has  no  possible  in- 
fluence in  making  an  event  certain,  no  proof  can  be 
drawn  from  the  divine  prescience  in  favour  of  the 
doctrine  that  God  hath  foreordained  lohatsoever 
comes  to  pass. 

2.  But  predestination  is  argued  from  the  necessity 
of  a  divine  plan.  ^'  It  cannot  be  conceived,"  it  is  said, 
"  that  God  would  leave  things  at  random,  and  have  no 
plan.  But  no  alteration  of  his  plan  can  take  place 
upon  condition  that  his  creatures  act  in  this  or  that 


14  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

way."  But  this  argument  is  easily  answered,  at  least 
for  the  present.  For  it  assumes  what  ought  to  be 
proved ;  and  what  has  not,  to  my  knowledge,  ever 
been  proved,  viz.,  that  to  deny  Calvinian  predestination 
is  to  deny  that  God  has  a  perfect  plan.  We  acknow- 
ledge and  maintain  that  God  has  a  plan,  one  part  of 
which  is,  to  govern  his  responsible  subjects  without 
controlling  their  will  by  a  fixed  decree — to  punish  the 
incorrigible,  and  save  those  who  repent  and  believe. 
Does  such  a  plan  imply  the  necessity  of  a  change,  "  on 
condition  that  his  creatures  act  in  this  or  that  way  V^ 
If,  indeed,  it  was  necessary  for  God  to  decree  an  event, 
in  order  to  foreknow  it,  this  inference  might  be  just. 
But  as  this  is  seen  to  be  false,  it  follows  that  a  perfect 
God,  whose  eye  surveys  immensity  and  eternity  at  a 
glance,  and  who  necessarily  knows  all  possibilities  and 
contingencies,  all  that  is,  or  will  be,  can  perfectly 
arrange  his  plan,  and  preclude  the  possibility  of  a  dis- 
appointment, although  he  does  not,  by  a  decree  of  pre- 
destination, fix  all  the  volitions  and  acts  of  his  subjects. 
Even  in  human  governments,  where  the  rulers  can 
have  no  knowledge  of  the  individuals  who  will  trans- 
gress, or  of  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  transgressions, 
the  principles  and  plan  of  government  undergo  no 
change  to  accommodate  themselves  to  the  contingent 
acts  of  the  subjects.  How  absurd,  then,  to  suppose 
that  the  all-wise  Ruler  of  the  universe  will  be  subject 
to  disappointment,  unless  he  predestinate  the  trans- 
gressions of  sinners  and  the  obedience  of  his  saints  ! 
The  truth  is,  in  my  view,  this  idea  detracts  from  the 
wisdom  of  God ;  for  the  perfection  of  his  plan,  as  they 
maintain  it,  is  predicated  on  the  imperfection  of  his 
attributes.  But  our  view  of  the  divine  plan  accords 
ell  with  our  idea  of  his  infinite  nature.     Over  the 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  15 

universe,  and  through  eternity,  he  throws  his  all- 
pervading  knowledge — as  he  is  in  every  point  of  wide 
immensity,  so  he  is  in  every  moment  of  long  eternity — 
and  can  such  a  God  be  disappointed  ? 

3.  "But,"  say  the  advocates  of  this  system,  "sup- 
posing there  are  difficulties  in  this  subject,  the  Scrip- 
tures abound  with  passages  which  at  once  prove  the 
doctrine."  If  this  is  true,  then  indeed  we  must  submit. 
But  the  question  is.  Where  are  these  passages  ?  After 
such  a  strong  assertion,  it  would  probably  appear  sur- 
prising to  one  unacquainted  with  this  subject  to  learn 
that  there  is  not  a  single  passage  which  teaches  directly . 
that  God  hath  foreordained  whatsoever  comes  to  pass. 
Yet  this  is  the  fact.  If  this  doctrine  is  taught  in  Scrip- 
ture, it  is  in  an  indirect  manner.  Nor  will  it  follow, 
because  God  hath  predestinated  some  things,  that  he 
hath,  therefore,  decreed  all  things.  All  those  passages 
then  which  Iiave  been  so  frequently  quoted  as  proof  of 
this  doctrine,  which  only  go  to  prove  that  God  hath 
predetermined  certain  events,  are  not  proof  in  point. 
Where  are  the  passages  that  say  he  hath  decreed  all 
things?  We  know  of  many  which  say  of  certain 
events  that  have  come  to  pass,  that  God  did  not  com- 
mand them,  nor  will  them ;  so  that  the  abundant 
Scripture  proof  seems  altogether  on  the  other  side  of 
the  question.  It  is  argued,  however,  that  certain  acts 
of  moral  agents,  even  those  acts  for  which  they  are 
held  responsible,  are,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  the 
results  of  God's  predetermination,  and  therefore  it  is 
reasonable  to  infer  that  all  are.  This  general  conclu 
sion,  however,  is  not  contained  in  the  premises ;  never- 
theless, if  the  premises  are  true,  if  it  can  be  proved 
from  Scripture  that  God  holds  his  creatures  responsible 
for  the  results  of  his  own  decrees,  such   Scripture 


16  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

proofs  would  be  strong  arguments  to  ward  off  the 
objections  that  are  brought  against  this  system.  For 
if  it  is  consistent  with  a  righteous  God  to  make  a 
moral  agent  responsible  for  one  event  which  was  the 
result  of  a  divine  decree,  upon  the  same  principle, 
perhaps,  he  might  make  him  responsible  for  all, 
though  all  were  decreed.  Let  us  then  look  at  those 
scriptures  :  "  As  for  you,"  says  Joseph  to  his  brethren, 
speaking  of  their  injustice  to  him,  "  ye  thought  evil 
against  me,  but  God  meant  it  for  good."  Now  with- 
out stopping  here  to  inquire  whether  Joseph  was  in- 
spired to  utter  this  sentiment,  we  are  ready  to  acknow- 
ledge that  there  are  a  number  of  similar  scriptures 
which  teach  that,  in  the  results  of  the  wicked  acts  of 
wicked  men,  God  had  a  design  and  a  controlling 
influence,  and  thereby  made  them  subservient  to  his 
own  purposes.  He  hath  wisdom  and  power  "to 
make  the  wrath  of  man  praise  him,  and  to  restrain 
the  remainder  of  wrath."  But  does  he  therefore 
decree  the  wrath  itself?  And  is  this  wrath  necessary 
to  the  accomplishment  of  his  purposes  ?  As  well 
might  it  be  said  that,  because  a  government,  in  quelling 
a  rebellion,  replenished  its  exchequer  from  the  con- 
fiscated estates  of  the  rebels,  therefore  that  govern- 
ment decreed  the  rebellion,  and  was  dependent  upon 
it  for  the  prosperity  of  the  nation.  Let  it  be  distinctly 
understood,  then,  that  to  overrule  and  control  the 
results  of  an  act  is  altogether  different  from  making 
the  act  itself  the  result  of  an  overruling  and  control- 
ling power. 

Again  it  is  said,  "  The  Lord  hath  made  all  things 
for  himself,  yea,  even  the  wicked  for  the  day  of  evil." 
That  the  Lord  hath  made  all  things  for  his  own 
glory,  is  a  proposition  easily  imderstood,  and  doubted, 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  17 

I  trust,  by  none ;  and  this  is  evidently  the  meaning 
of  the  former  member  of  this  passage.  The  latter 
clause,  if  it  helps  the  cause  for  which  it  is  quoted  at 
all,  must  mean  that  the  Lord  has  predestinated  men 
to  be  wicked,  that  he  might  make  them  miserable. 
But  it  is  not  necessary  to  make  the  text  speak  this 
shocking  sentiment.  We  should  do  the  text  no  vio- 
lence to  explain  it  thus  : — The  Lord  hath  destined 
the  wicked  for  the  day  of  evil,  and  this  shall  be  for 
his  glory. 

But  there  is  another  class  of  passages  like  the 
following  : — "  He  doeth  according  to  his  will  in  the 
army  of  heaven,  and  among  the  inhabitants  of  the 
earth."  "  He  worketh  all  things  after  the  counsel  of 
his  will."  "I  will  do  all  my  pleasure."  But  these 
passages  establish  nothing  in  opposition  to  our  views, 
unless  it  should  first  be  proved  by  other  passages,  or 
in  some  other  way,  that  it  is  God's  will  and  pleasure 
to  work  all  things^  even  wickedness,  in  the  wicked. 
These  scriptures  prove  that  all  God's  works  are  in 
accordance  with  his  own  will  and  pleasure :  and  that 
he  will  accomplish  them  in  spite  of  the  opposition  of 
sinners.  If  it  pleases  him  to  form  his  moral  govern- 
ment so  as  to  leave  the  responsible  acts  of  his  subjects 
unnecessitated  by  his  decree,  this  he  will  do,  for  "  he 
will  do  all  his  pleasure." 

But  there  is  still  another  class  of  texts,  which  are  sup- 
posed to  favour  the  doctrine  we  are  opposing,  more  than 
any  others,  viz.,  those  passages  which  seem  to  repre- 
sent God  as  bringing  about  and  procuring  the  wicked- 
ness of  the  wicked :  like  the  following  : — "  And  I 
will  harden  Pharaoh's  heart,  that  he  shall  not  let  the 
people  go."  "  Now  therefore  the  Lord  hath  put  a 
lying  spirit  in  the  mouth  of  all  these  thy  prophets." 


18  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

"He  hath  Winded  their  eyes  and  hardened  their 
hearts."  '•  Him,  being  dehvered  by  the  determinate 
counsel  and  foreknowledge  of  God,  ye  have  taken, 
and  by  wicked  hands  ye  have  crucified  and  slain." 
On  these  and  similar  passages  it  may  be  remarked, 
that  God  blinds  men  and  hardens  their  hearts  judi- 
cially, as  a  just  punishment  for  their  abuse  of  their 
agency.  And  for  this  act  of  his,  in  blinding  and 
hardening  them,  he  does  not  make  them  responsible. 
But  he  holds  them  responsible  for  that  degree  of 
wickedness  which  made  it  just  and  necessary  to  give 
them  over  to  this  hardness  of  heart  and  blindness  of 
mind.  And  since  there  are  wicked  men  and  lying 
spirits,  they  become  fit  instruments  in  deceiving  and 
tormenting  each  other ;  and  therefore  God  gives  them 
power  and  liberty  to  go  abroad,  "  deceiving  and  being 
deceived."  But  how  does  this  prove  that  God  hath 
decreed  sin  ?  The  idea  that  God  hath  made  sin  and 
wicked  spirits  the  instruments  of  hardening  and 
tormenting  the  incorrigible  sinner,  and  finally  of 
shutting  the  door  of  hope  against  him,  has  no  kind 
of  affinity  to  the  idea  that  he  decreed  the  sin  which 
occasioned  this  hardness,  or  ordained  the  wickedness 
of  this  lying  spirit. 

As  to  the  passage  from  the  Acts,  none  of  us  deny 
but  that  Jesus  Christ  was  delivered  up  to  suffer  and 
die,  by  the  determinate  counsel  and  foreknowledge 
of  God  ;  but  it  is  most  emphatically  denied  that  this 
or  any  other  scripture  proves  that  the  taking  and 
slaying  of  Jesus  Christ  by  wicked  hands,  was  the 
result  of  the  determinate  counsel  and  foreknowledge 
of  God.     If  any  think  otherwise,  let  them  prove  it. 

Having  stated,  and,  as  our  time  would  permit, 
examined  the  arguments  in  favour  of  the  sentiment 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY.  19 

we  are  opposing,  we  are  prepared  to  urge  against 
this  doctrine,  not  only  that  its  arguments  are  unsound 
and  insufficient,  but  also  that  the  system  itself  is  liable 
to  the  most  serious  and  formidable  objections. 

1.  This  doctrine  of  predestination  makes  God  the 
author  of  sin.  Some  acknowledge  this,  and  expressly 
assert  that  God  is  the  '•  efficient  cause"  of  sin.  Others 
affirm  it  in  fact,  while  they  deny  it  in  word.  Take 
for  instance  the  words  of  Calvin.  "  I  will  not  scruple 
to  own,"  he  says,  ''  that  the  will  of  God  lays  a  neces- 
sity on  all  things,  and  that  every  thing  he  wills  neces- 
sarily comes  to  pass."  In  accordance  with  this,  Piscator, 
Dr.  Twiss,  Peter  Martyr,  and  others  tell  us  that  ^''  God 
procures  adultery,  cursings,  and  lyings" — ^'  God  is  the 
author  of  that  act  which  is  evil" — "  God,  by  his  work- 
ing on  the  hearts  of  the  wicked,  binds  them  and  stirs 
hem  to  do  evil."  They  deny,  however,  that  God  is 
the  author  of  sin,  because  they  say,  "  God  necessitates 
them  to  the  act,  and  not  to  the  dei^ravity  of  sin  :"  or, 
that  "  God  does  not  sin  when  he  makes  men  sin, 
because  he  is  under  no  law,  and  therefore  cannot  sin." 
But  these  are  miserable  shifts.  Has  not  the  deformity 
of  sin  come  to  pass  ?  Then  God  has  decreed  this 
deformity.  To  deny  this,  is  to  give  up  the  doctrine. 
But  to  acknowledge  it,  is  to  own  that  God  is  as  much 
the  author  of  the  deformity  as  he  is  of  the  act.  Again, 
God  doubtless  decreed  that  sin  should  be  sin,  and  not 
holiness  ;  and  it  came  to  pass  as  sin,  because  it  was 
so  decreed.  Is  he  not  then  the  direct  procuring  cause  1 
A  thousand  turns  of  this  kind,  therefore,  are  nothing 
but  evasions.  The  Jiat  of  God  brought  forth  sin  as 
certainly  as  it  made  the  world. 

We  are  often  told,  when  we  quote  Calvin  and  his 
contemporaries,  that  these  are  old  authors ;  that  modern 


30  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

Calvinists  do  not  hold  thus,  and  that  they  ought  not 
to  be  made  accountable  for  these  writers.  But  the  fact 
isj  we  make  them  accountable  only  for  the  logical 
consequences  of  their  own  doctrine.  The  whole 
system  turns  on  this  hinge,  "  God  foreordains  whatso- 
ever comes  to  pass."  For  he  that,  by  his  will  and 
decree,  produces  and  causes  siii,  that  makes  sin  a 
necessary  part  of  his  plan,  and  is  the  author  of  the  very 
elements  and  materials  of  his  own  plan,  must  be  the 
proper  and  sole  cause  of  sin,  or  we  have  yet  to  learn 
the  definition  of  common  words,  and  the  meaning  of 
plain  propositions.  The  distinction,  therefore,  oi ancient 
and  modern^  of  rigid  and  moderate  Calvinists,  is  more 
in  word  than  in  reality.  And  it  would  add  much  to 
the  consistency  of  this  system,  if  all  its  advocates  would 
acknowledge,  what  is  evidently  deducible  from  the 
premises,  that  God  is  the  efficient  cause  of  sin. 

2.  This  doctrine  of  predestination  destroys  the  free 
agency,  and  of  course  the  accountability  of  man. 
That  it  destroys  free  will  was  seen  and  acl^nowledged 
by  many  predestinarians  of  the  old  school.  And  the 
opposers  of  Mr.  Wesley  and  Mr.  Fletcher  violently 
assailed  them  on  this  subject.  Mr.  Southey  informs 
us,  in  his  Life  of  Wesley,  that  the  Calvinists  called 
this  doctrine  of  free  will,  "  a  cursed  doctrine" — "  the 
most  God-dishonouring  and  soul-destroying  doctrine  of 
the  day" — "  one  of  the  prominent  features  of  the  beast" 
— "  the  enemy  of  God" — "  the  offspring  of  the  wicked 
one" — "the  insolent  brat  of  hell."  Others,  and  the 
greater  part  of  the  Calvinists  of  the  present  day,  en- 
deavour to  reconcile  the  ideas  of  necessity  and  free 
agency.  Man,  they  say,  sins  voluntarily,  because  he 
chooses  or  wills  to  sin ;  therefore  he  is  a  free  agent. 
Hence  they  exhort  sinners  to  repent,  and  tell  them 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY.  31 

m 

they  can  repent  if  they  will.  By  which  they  mean, 
the  only  impossibility  of  their  repenting  is  in  their 
will — their  cannot  is  their  luill  not.  This  has  led 
many  to  think  that  there  is  no  difference  between 
their  preachers  and  the  Arminians.  But  let  us  look 
at  this  subject  a  little,  and  see  if  there  is  not  some 
sophistry  concealed  in  this  dexterous  coil  of  words. 
God,  according  to  this  doctrine,  secures  the  end  as  well 
as  the  means,  by  his  decree  of  predestination.  And 
therefore,  as  Calvin  says,  "  every  action  and  motion 
of  every  creature  is  governed  by  the  hidden  counsel 
of  God."  The  will,  therefore,  in  all  its  operations,  is 
governed  and  irresistibly  controlled  by  some  secret 
impulse,  some  fixed  and  all-controlling  arrangement. 
It  is  altogether  futile,  then,  to  talk  about  free  agency 
under  such  a  constitution  ;  the  very  spring  of  motion 
to  the  whole  intellectual  machinery  is  under  the 
influence  of  a  secret,  invincible  power.  And  it  must 
move  as  that  power  directs ;  for  it  is  the  hand  of  Omni- 
potence that  urges  it  on.  He  can  act  as  he  wills^  it  is 
true,  but  the  whole  responsibility  consists  in  the  voli- 
tion, and  this  is  the  result  of  God's  propelling  power. 
He  wills  as  he  is  made  to  will — he  chooses  as  he  m^ust 
choose,  for  the  immutable  decree  of  Jehovah  is  upon 
him.  And  can  a  man,  upon  the  known  and  univer- 
sally acknowledged  principles  of  responsibility,  be 
accountable  for  such  a  volition  ?  It  is  argued,  I  know, 
that  man  is  responsible,  because  he  feels  that  he  acts 
freely,  and  that  he  might  have  done  otherwise.  To 
this  I  reply,  that  this  is  a  good  argument,  on  our 
principles,  to  prove  that  men  are  free — but,  on  the 
Calvinistic  ground,  it  only  proves  that  God  hath  de- 
ceived us.  He  has  made  us  feel  that  we  might  do 
otherwise,  but  he  knows  we  cannot — he  has  deter- 


22  CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY. 

mined  we  shall  not.  So  that,  in  fact,  this  argument 
makes  the  system  more  objectionable.  While  it  does 
not  change  the  fact  in  the  case,  it  attributes  deception 
to  the  Almighty.  It  is  logically  true,  therefore,  from 
this  doctrine,  that  man  is  not  a  free  agent,  and  there- 
fore not  responsible.  A  moral  agent,  to  be  free,  must 
be  possessed  of  a  self-determining  principle.  Make 
the  will  any  thing  short  of  this,  and  you  put  all  the 
volitions,  and  of  course  the  whole  moral  man,  under 
foreign  and  irresistible  influences. 

3.  Another  strong  objection  to  the  doctrine  we 
oppose,  is,  it  arrays  God's  secret  decrees  against  his 
revealed  word.  God  commands  men  not  to  sin,  and 
yet  ordains  that  they  shall  sin.  In  his  word,  he  sets 
before  them,  in  striking  relief,  motives  of  fear  and  of 
hope,  for  the  express  purpose,  as  he  informs  us,  "  that 
they  sin  not ;"  but,  by  his  predestination  and  secret 
counsel,  he  irresistibly  impels  them  in  an  opposite 
course  for  the  express  purpose,  as  this  doctrine  informs 
us,  to  secure  their  transgression.  His  rule  of  action 
is  in  direct  opposition  to  our  rule  of  duty.  And  yet 
he  is  the  author  of  both  !  Is  God  at  war  with  himself, 
or  is  he  sporting  and  trifling  with  his  creatures  ?  Or 
is  it  not  more  probable  than  either,  that  the  premises 
are  false?  When  or  where  has  God  ever  taught  us 
that  he  has  two  opposing  wills  ?  A  character  so  sus- 
picious, to  say  the  least  of  it,  ought  not,  without  the 
most  unequivocal  evidence,  to  be  attributed  to  the 
adorable  Jehovah.  In  his  word  we  are  taught  that 
he  is  "  of  07ie  mind" — that  his  "  ways  are  equal ;"  and 
who  can  doubt  it  ?  We  are  told,  it  is  true,  to  relieve 
the  difliculty,  that  this  seeming  contradiction  is  one 
of  the  mysteries  of  God's  incomprehensible  nature. 
Rut  it  is  not  a  seeming  contradiction,  it  is  a  real  one  ; 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  23 

not  an  insolvable  mystery,  but  a  palpable  absurdity. 
God  prohibits  the  sinful  act — God  ordains  and  pro- 
cures the  sinful  act — God  wills  the  salvatio?i  of  the 
reprobate,  whom  he  has  from  all  eternity  irreversibly 
ordained  to  eternal  death !  When  I  can  embrace 
such  opposite  propositions  by  calling  them  mysteries, 
I  can  believe  that  two  and  two  are  more  than  four, 
that  all  the  parts  are  less  than  the  whole,  and  that  a 
thing  may  be  made  to  exist  and  not  exist  at  the  same 
time  ;  and  explain  them  by  a  reference  to  the  mystery 
of  God's  incomprehensible  nature. 

4.  In  close  connection  with  the  foregoing  objection, 
it  may  be  added,  that  this  system  mars,  if  it  does  not 
destroy,  the  moral  attributes  of  God.  If  he  holds  men 
responsible  for  what  is  unavoidable — if  he  makes  laws 
and  then  impels  men  to  break  them,  and  finally 
punishes  them  for  their  transgressions — if  he  mourns 
over  the  evils  of  the  world,  and  expostulates  with  sin- 
ners, saying,  "  How  can  I  give  thee  up — my  heart  is 
melted  within  me,  my  repentings  are  kindled  together," 
— "  O  Jerusalem  !  Jerusalem  !  how  oft  would  I  have 
gathered  you,  and  ye  would  not," — and  still  he  him- 
self "  impels  the  will  of  men"  to  all  this  wickedness — 
if,  I  say,  God  does  all  this,  where  is  his  veracity? 
Where  is  his  mercy  ?  Where  is  his  justice  ?  What 
more  could  be  said  of  the  most  merciless  tyrant? 
What  of  the  most  arrant  hypocrite  ?  What  of  Satan 
himself?  What  does  this  doctrine  make  of  our 
heavenly  Father  ?  I  shudder  to  follow  it  out  into  its 
legitimate  bearings.  It  seems  to  me,  a  belief  of  it  is 
enough  to  drive  one  to  infidelity,  to  madness,  and  to 
death.  If  the  supporters  of  this  system  must  adhere 
to  it,  I  rejoice  that  they  can  close  their  eyes  against  its 
logical  consequences,  otherwise  it  would  make  them 


24  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

^VTetched  in  the  extreme,  or  drive  them  into  other 
dangerous  theoretical  and  practical  errors.  Indeed, 
in  many  instances  it  has  done  this — which  leads  to 
another  objection  to  this  doctrine. 

5.  It  puts  a  plea  into  the  mouth  of  sinners  to  justify 
themselves  in  their  sins,  and  leads  to  Universalism 
and  infidelity.  They  reason  thus  : — Whatever  God 
decrees  is  according  to  his  will,  and  therefore  right. 
And  God  will  not  punish  his  creatures  for  doing 
right.  Whatever  God  decrees  is  unavoidable,  and 
God  will  not  punish  his  creatures  for  what  is  unavoid- 
able. But  ''  every  action  and  motion  of  every 
creature  is  governed  by  the  hidden  counsel  of  God." 
Therefore  God  will  not  punish  any  of  his  creatures 
for  any  of  their  acts.  Now,  who  can  point  out  any 
fallacy  in  this  reasoning  ?  If,  therefore,  predestination 
be  true,  Universalism  is  true,  according  to  the  uni- 
versally acknowledged  principles  of  justice.  And  it 
is  a  notorious  fact,  that  modern  Universalism,  which 
is  prevailing  so  generally  through  the  country,  rests 
for  its  chief  support  on  the  doctrine  of  predestination. 
Others  having  seen,  as  they  thought,  that  the  Scrip- 
tures would  not  support  the  doctrine  of  Universalism, 
and  that  matter  of  fact  seemed  to  contradict  the  above 
reasoning,  inasmuch  as  men  are  made  to  suffer,  even 
in  this  life,  for  their  sins,  have  leaped  over  all  scrip- 
tural bounds  into  infidelity  and  philosophical  neces- 
sity. I  have  personally  known  numbers  who  have 
been  driven,  by  the  doctrine  we  object  to,  into  open 
infidelity.  And  it  is  well  known  that  the  doctrine  of 
fate,  which  is  closely  allied  to  Calvinian  predestina- 
tion, is  the  element  in  which  infidelity  "lives  and 
moves  and  has  its  being."  And  can  this  be  the 
doctrine  of  the  Bible  ?    How  much  is  it  to  be  regretted 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY.  25 

that  our  worthy  pilgrim  fathers  should  have  sowed 
this  Geneva  seed  in  our  happy  country  !  The  evils 
done  to  the  churcli  are  incalculable. 

These,  candid  hearers,  are  some  of  the  objections 
we  have  to  this  doctrine — objections  so  serious,  and, 
as  we  think,  so  obvious,  that  you  may  well  ask, 
What  has  induced  good  men  to  advocate  it  so  long  ? 
It  is,  doubtless,  because  it  stands  connected  intimately 
with  the  doctrine  of  unconditional  election,  and  what 
have  been  called  by  Calvinists  "  the  doctrines  of 
grace."  But  for  unconditional  election,  predestina- 
tion would  not  be  desired,  even  by  those  who  now 
hold  to  it ;  and  but  for  predestination,  unconditional 
election  could  not  be  maintained.  Hence  these  have 
very  properly  been  called  "  twin  doctrines,"  and  must 
stand  or  fall  together.  Let  us  pass,  then,  to  the  next 
proposition. 

II.  We  come  to  examine  predestination  in  its  par- 
ticular relation  to  election. 

Several  kinds  of  election  are  spoken  of  in  the 
Scriptures.  There  is  an  election  of  individuals,  to 
perform  certain  duties  appointed  by  God : — thus 
Christ  was  God's  elect,  for  the  redemption  of  the 
world  ;  and  Cyrus  was  elected  by  him  to  rebuild  the 
temple.  There  is  an  election  of  whole  communities 
and  nations  to  the  e2ijoyment  of  certain  peculiar 
privileges,  political  and  ecclesiastical,  relating  of 
course  to  this  life  : — thus  Jacob  and  his  descendants 
were  God's  chosen  people  to  the  enjoyment  of  reli- 
gious and  national  privileges  from  which  Esau  and 
his  descendants,  together  with  the  whole  Gentile 
world,  were  excluded  ;  and  thus,  too,  subsequently, 
the  middle  wall  of  partition  made  by  the  former  decree 
of  election  between  Jew  and  Gentile  being  broken 

2 


S6  CALVINISTIC  CO?fTKOVi:RSY. 

down,  the  Gentiles  became  equal  sharers  with  the 
Jews  in  the  privileges  of  the  new  covenant,  called  the 
"election  of  grace."  This  election  is  unconditional, 
and  is  believed  to  be  the  one  spoken  of  in  our  text, 
and  many  other  passages  of  Scripture.  Of  these 
however,  I  shall  speak  more  particularly  in  another 
place. 

There  is  a  third  election — an  election  unto  eternal 
life,  and  this  is  the  one  which  has  given  rise  to  the 
great  controversy  in  the  church.  Those  who  contend 
for  predestination,  as  objected  to  by  us,  maintain  that, 
"  by  the  decree  of  God,  for  the  manifestation  of  his 
glory,  some  men  and  angels  are  predestinated  unto 
everlasting  life,  and  others  foreordained  to  everlasting 
death.  Those  of  mankind  that  are  predestinated  unto 
hfe,  God,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  hath 
chosen  in  Christ,  unto  everlasting  glory,  loithout  any 
foresight  of  faith  or  good  toorks^  Others,  and  this 
also  is  our  doctrine,  hold  that  "  God  did  decree  from 
the  beginning  to  elect,  or  choose  in  Christ,  all  that 
should  beheve  unto  salvation,  and  this  decree  proceeds 
from  his  own  goodness,  and  is  not  built  on  any  good- 
ness of  the  creature  :  and  that  God  did  from  the  beo-in- 
ning  decree  to  reprobate  all  who  should  finally  and 
obstinately  continue  in  unbelief.*'  Thus  it  is  seen, 
from  the  statement  of  the  two  doctrines,  that  ours  is  an 
election  of  characters ;  and,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  indi- 
viduals, it  relates  to  them  only  as  they  are  foreseen  to 
possess  that  character ;  whereas  the  other  relates 
directly  to  individuals,  without  any  reference  to  cha- 
racter.    It  is  an  absolute   act   of  sovereignty God 

elects  them  for  no  other  reason  or  condition  than 
because  he  chooses.  He  makes  no  account  of  man's 
agency  or  responsibility  in  this  decree  of  election,  but 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  37 

it  precedes  and  is  entirely  independent  of  any  know- 
ledge of  the  character  of  the  elect.  Our  views  of 
election,  on  the  contrary,  make  it  conditionally  de- 
pendent on  the  responsible  agency  of  man.  In  the 
one  case,  the  sinner  is  made  to  receive  Christ,  because 
he  is  elected ;  and  in  the  other,  he  is  elected,  because 
he  receives  Christ.  From  this  difference,  too,  proceed 
other  differences.  The  Calvinistic  election,  to  be 
consistent  with  itself,  requires  that,  as  the  end  is  arbi- 
trarily fixed,  so  the  means  must  be  also^hence  the 
doctrines  of  irresistible  grace,  effectual  calling,  and 
infallible  perseverance.  Calvinian  election,  therefore, 
stands  intimately  allied  to  Calvinian  predestination ; 
and  the  whole  forms  a  chain  of  doctrines  differing- 
materially  from  ours.  And  here  we  acknowledge  we 
have  a  position  to  prove  as  well  as  our  opponents. 
We  assert  that  election  to  eternal  life  is  conditional ; 
they,  that  it  is  unconditional.  We  will  first  attempt 
to  prove  our  position — then  state  and  answer  the 
arguments  in  favour  of  unconditional  election — and, 
finally,  urge  some  objections  against  unconditional 
election  and  reprobation. 

1.  Our  first  argument  in  favour  of  conditional 
election  to  eternal  life  is  drawn  from  the  position 
already  established,  that  the  decrees  of  God  are  predi- 
cated on  his  foreknowledge ;  and,  especially,  that  the 
decree  of  election  to  salvation,  according  to  the  Scrip- 
tures, is  founded  on  the  divine  prescience :  ''  Elect 
according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God,  through 
sanctification  of  the  Spirit  unto  obedience,  and  sprink- 
ling of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ."  "  Whom  he  did 
foreknow,  he  also  did  predestinate,  to  be  conformed  to 
the  image  of  his  Son."  These  scriptures  seem  to  us 
decisive  that  the  decree  of  election  rests  on  foreknow- 


28  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

ledge,  and  that  this  election  is  made,  not  according  to 
the  arbitrary  act  of  God,  but  on  the  ground  of  sancti- 
fication  and  obedience.  The  doctrine,  therefore,  that 
men  are  predestinated  to  eternal  life,  "  without  any 
foresight  of  faith  or  good  works,"  must  be  false. 

2.  The  rewardableness  of  obedience,  or  the  demerit 
of  disobedience,  can  only  exist  in  connection  with  the 
unnecessitated  volitions  of  a  free  moral  agent.  The 
Scriptures  abundantly  teach  that,  to  be  saved,  man 
must  believe  and  obey  ;  and  hence  they  command  and 
exhort  men  to  believe  and  obey,  and  promise  them  the 
reward  of  eternal  life  if  they  do  this,  and  criminate 
them  if  they  neglect  it.  But,  according  to  the  doctrine 
of  free  agency  already  explained,  man's  obedience  or 
disobedience,  if  it  has  any  just  relation  to  rewards  and 
punishments,  must  rest,  in  its  responsible  character, 
upon  the  self-determining  principle  of  the  will.  And 
if  this  view  of  the  will  be  correct,  there  is  an  utter 
impossibility  of  an  unconditional  election ;  for  the 
very  act  of  God,  imparting  this  self-determining  prin- 
ciple to  man,  renders  it  impossible,  in  the  nature  of 
things,  for  the  Almighty  himself  to  elect  a  moral  agent 
unconditionally.  The  argument  stands  thus — The 
Scriptures  make  man  a  responsible  moral  agent ;  but 
this  he  cannot  be,  if  his  will  be  controlled  by  foreign 
and  unavoidable  influences,  therefore  it  is  not  so  con- 
trolled :  that  is,  man  has  within  himself  a  self-deter- 
mining principle,  in  the  exercise  of  which  he  becomes 
responsible.  This  being  established,  we  argue  again 
— The  doctrine  of  unconditional  election  necessarily 
implies  irresistible  grace,  absolutely  impelling  and 
controlling  the  will.  But  this  would  be  to  counteract 
God's  own  work,  and  to  destroy  man's  accountability ; 
therefore  there  is  no  such  irresistible  grace,  and,  of 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY.  29 

course,  no  such  unconditional  election.  And  since 
there  is  an  election  to  eternal  life,  spoken  of  in  the 
Scriptures,  it  follows  conclusively,  if  the  foregoing 
reasoning  be  sound,  that  this  election  is  conditional. 
Hence  we  may  bring  forward,  in  one  overwhelnriing 
argument,  all  the  numerous  and  various  Bible  condi- 
tions of  salvation,  as  so  many  Scripture  proofs  of  a 
conditional  election. 

3.  I^ie  Cautions  to  the  elect,  and  the  intimations 
of  their  danger,  and  the  possibility  of  their  being  lost, 
are  so  many  Scripture  proofs  of  a  conditional  electionj 
Why  should  the  saints  be  exhorted  "tojake  heed  lest 
they  fall  ^'^ lest  there  be  in  them  an  evil  heart  of  un- 
belief, in  departing  from  the  living  God^?"  "  lest  a 
promise  being  left  of  entering  into  rest,  any  should 
come  short?"  lest  they  should  "also  be  cut  off?"«€^' 
Why  should  St.  Paul  fear  lest,  after  having  preached 
to  others,  he  should  be  a  cast-away  ?  Either  there  is, 
or  is  not,  danger  of  the  elect's  being  lost.  If  not,  then 
all  these  passages  are  not  only  without  meaning,  but 
savour  very  strongly  of  deception.  They  are  false 
colours  held  out  to  the  elect,  for  the  purposes  of  alarm 
and  fear,  where  no  fear  is.  W^ill  it  be  said,  that  pos- 
sibly some  of  those  addressed  were  not  of  the  elect, 
and  were  therefore  deceiving  themselves,  and  needed 
to  be  cautioned  and  warned  ?  I  answer,  they  had  then 
nothing  to  iall  fmm^  and  no  promise  of  yvhich  to  come 
shoxt.  Besides,  to  warn  such  to  stand  Jast,  seems  to 
imply  that  the  Holy  Spirit  cautioned  the  reprobates 
against  the  danger  of  becoming  the-eLect.  which  idea, 
while  it  intimates  a  very  ungracious  work  for  the 
"  Spirit  of  grace"  to  be  engaged  in,  clearly  indicates 
that  there  was  danger  of  breaking  the  decree  of  repro- 
bation !      We  ask   again,  therefore,  What  do   these 


30  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

scriptures  mean  ?  Will  it  be  said,  as  some  have  argued, 
that  these  warnings  and  cautions  are  all  consistent, 
because  they  are  the  very  means  by  which  the  decree 
of  election  is  made  sure  ?  But  let  it  be  understood 
that  the  end  is  fixed  before  the  means  ;  because  Cal- 
vinism tells  us  that  this  election  is  "  independent  of  any 
faith  or  good  works  foreseen,"  and  that  "  God's  decree 
lays  a  necessity  on  all  things,  so  that  every  thing  he 
wills  necessarily  comes  to  pass,"  and  is  therefore  sure, 
"  because  he  has  decreed  it."  The  moment,  therefore, 
God  decrees  an  event,  it  becomes  sure,  and  to  talk 
of  danger  of  a  failure  in  that  event,  implies  either  a 
falsehood,  or  that  God's  decree  can  be  broken.  But 
Calvinists,  I  presume,  will  not  allow  that  there  is  any 
danger  of  counteracting  or  frustrating  the  plan  of  the 
Almighty.  Hence  there  is  no  danger  of  the  elect's 
coming  short  of  salvation.  All  the  exhortations, 
cautions,  and  warnings,  therefore,  recorded  in  the 
Scriptures,  are  false  colours  and  deceptive  motives. 
They  are  like  the  attempts  of  some  weak  parents,  who 
undertake  to  frighten  their  children  into  obedience  by 
superstitious  tales  and  groundless  fears.  God  knows, 
when  he  is  giving  out  these  intimations  of  danger,  that 
there  is  no  such  danger ;  his  own  eternal,  unchange- 
able decree  had  secured  their  salvation  before  the 
means  were  planned — all  this,  if  election  is  uncondi- 
tional. But  far  be  this  from  a  God  of  truth.  If  he 
exhorts  his  creatures  to  "  make  their  election  sure,"  he 
has  not  made  it  sure.  If  he  teaches  them  to  fear,  lest 
they  fail  of  the  grace  of  God,  there  is  doubtless  real 
danger.  The  conclusion  therefore  is  irresistible,  that 
God  hath  suspended  his  decree  of  election  to  eternal 
life  on  conditions  :  "  He  that  believeth  shall  be  saved." 
4.    This  accords  also  with   Christian  experience. 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.      9         I?   31 

What  is  it  that  produces  much  fear  and  trembling  in 
the  mind  of  the  awakened  sinner  ?  Why  does  he  feel 
that  there  is  but  a  step  between  him  and  destruction  ? 
Is  it  fancy,  or  is  it  fact  ?  If  it  is  imagination  merely, 
then  all  his  alarm  is  founded  in  deception,  and  he  has 
either  deceived  himself,  or  the  Spirit  of  God  hath  de- 
ceived him.  In  either  case,  this  alarm  seems  neces- 
sary, in  order  to  lead  him  to  Christ.  That  is,  it  is 
necessary  for  the  conversion  of  one  of  the  elect  that 
he  be  made  to  believe  a  lie.  But  if  it  be  said  that  it 
is  no  lie,  for  he  is  really  in  danger,  then  we  reply  again, 
the  decree  of  God  hath  not  made  his  election  sure,  and 
of  course,  therefore,  it  is  conditional. 

5.  Express  passages  of  Scripture  teach  a  conditional 
election.  We  have  time  only  to  notice  a  few  of  them. 
Matt,  xxii,  14,  "For  many  are  called,  but  few  are 
chosen."  This  passage,  with  the  parable  of  the  wed- 
ding that  precedes  it,  teaches  that  the  choice  was  made 
subsequently  to  the  call,  and  was  grounded  on  the  fact, 
that  those  chosen  had  actually  and  fully  complied  with 
the  invitation,  and  had  come  to  the  wedding  duly  pre- 
pared. John  XV,  19,  "  If  ye  were  of  the  world,  the 
world  would  love  you,  but  because  ye  are  not  of  the 
world,  but  I  have  chosen  you  out  of  the  world,  there- 
fore the  world  hateth  you."  This  passage  teaches 
that  Christ's  disciples  were  once  of  the  world,  and  that 
he  had  chosen  them  out  of  the  world,  and  this  choice 
evidently  refers  to  that  time  when  they  became  of  a 
different  character  from  the  world ;  for  then  it  was, 
and  in  consequence  of  that  election,  that  the  world 
hated  them.  2  Thess.  ii,  13,  "Because  God  hath, 
from  the  beginning,  chosen  you  to  salvation,  through 
sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth." 
Here  is  a  condition  plainly  expressed.     This  is  not  an 


32  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

election  unto  sanctification,  but  an  election  through 
or  6^^  sanctification  and  faith  unto  salvation. 

From  the  whole  then  it  appears  that  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, the  divine  attributes  and  government,  and  the 
agency  of  man,  stand  opposed  to  an  unconditional, 
and  are  in  favour  of  a  conditional  election. 

In  opposition  to  these  arguments,  however,  and  in 
favour  of  unconditional  election,  our  opponents  urge 
various  scriptures,  which,  as  they  think,  are  strong 
and  incontrovertible  arguments  in  favour  of  their 
system.  And  as  these  scriptures  are  their  strong  and 
only  defence,  it  is  proposed  that  they  should  be 
noticed.  The  limits  of  this  discourse,  however,  will 
admit  of  but  a  short  notice,  and  that  not  of  individual 
texts,  but  of  classes  of  texts. 

1.  The  first  class  of  passages  that  we  will  now 
examine,  which  are  supposed  to  favour  the  idea  of 
unconditional  election,  is  those  that  speak  of  a  pre- 
destination unto  holiness.  Our  text  is  one  of  the 
strongest  instances  of  this  kind,  "  He  hath  chosen  us 
from  the  foundation  of  the  world,  that  we  should  be 
holy — having  predestinated  us  unto  the  adoption  of 
sons,"  &c.  See  also  Rom.  viii,  29,  "  For  whom  he 
did  foreknow,  he  also  did  predestinate  to  be  conformed 
to  the  image  of  his  Son,"  and  "  whom  he  did  predes- 
tinate— he  called — justified — and  glorified."  The 
argument  upon  these  and  similar  passages  is,  that 
the  decree  of  predestination  could  not  be  founded  on 
their  faith  or  holiness ;  because  they  were  predesti- 
nated to  become  holy — the  decree  of  predestination 
had  their  holiness  for  its  object  and  end.  But  if  these 
passages  had  an  allusion  to  a  personal  election  to  eter- 
nal life,  they  would  not  prove  unconditional  election, 
"because,"  to  use  the  language  of  another,  "it  would 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY.  33 

admit  of  being  questioned,  whether  the  choosing  in 
Christ,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  here  men- 
tioned, was  a  choice  of  certain  persons  as  men  merely , 
or  as  believing  men,  which  is  certainly  the  most 
rational."  This  exposition  must  necessarily  be  given 
to  the  passage  from  the  Romans,  since  those  who  were 
the  subjects  of  predestination  were  first  foreknoion : 
foreknown,  not  merely  as  existing,  for  in  this  sense  all 
were  foreknown,  but  foreknown  as  possessing  some- 
thing which  operated  as  a  reason  why  they  should  be 
elected  rather  than  others :  foreknown,  doubtless,  as 
believers  in  Christ,  and  as  such,  according  to  the 
plan  and  decree  of  God,  they  were  to  be  made  con- 
formable to  the  image  of  Christ's  holiness  here,  and 
glory  hereafter.  And  according  to  the  same  divine 
plan,  the  order  of  this  work  was,  1.  The  call ;  2. 
Justification ;  3.  Glorification.  And  this  interpreta- 
tion, which  so  obviously  upon  the  face  of  it  is  the 
meaning  of  the  passage  from  Romans,  would  also  be 
a  good  meaning  to  the  passage  in  Ephesians,  if  that 
passage  should  be  understood  in  reference  to  personal 
election.  But  I  do  not  so  understand  it ;  and  I  think 
any  unprejudiced  reader,  by  looking  at  the  context, 
and  especially  from  the  9th  to  the  1 1th  verse  sinclu- 
sive,  in  this  chapter,  and  at  most  of  the  second  chapter, 
will  perceive  that  the  apostle  is  here  speaking  of  that 
general  plan  of  God,  which  had  been  fixed  from  the 
beginning,  of  admitting  the  Gentiles  as  well  as  the 
Jews  to  the  privileges  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  on 
equal  terms  and  conditions.  Thus  the  middle  wall 
of  partition  was  to  be  broken  down  between  Jew  and 
Gentile ;  and  this  was  the  mystery  which  was  con- 
cealed for  ages,  not  being  understood  even  by  the 
Jews  themselves,  but  then  by  the  gospel  was  brought 

2* 


34  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

to  light.  According  to  this  plan,  the  Ephesians  and 
all  other  Gentiles  were  chosen  or  elected  to  these 
Christian  privileges,  the  very  design  and  purpose  of 
which  were  to  make  them  holy  ;  and  in  the  improve- 
ment of  w^hich,  according  to  the  prescribed  conditions 
of  faith  in  Christ,  and  repentance  toward  God,  they 
should  become  his  adopted  children. 

This  foreappointing  of  the  Gentiles  to  the  privileges 
of  the  gracious  covenant  is  the  election  most  spoken 
of  in  the  New  Testament.  And  the  reason  why  it 
was  so  often  introduced,  especially  in  the  writings 
of  Paul,  who  was  the  chief  apostle  to  the  Gentiles,  was, 
because  the  Jews  so  uniformly  and  earnestly  opposed 
this  feature  of  Christianity.  They  could  not  be  recon- 
ciled to  the  idea  that  the  peculiar  and  distinctive 
character  of  their  theocracy  and  ecclesiastical  polity 
should  be  so  changed,  or  that  the  dealings  of  God  with 
the  world  should  be  explained  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
give  ihem  no  superior  claims,  in  the  privileges  of  the 
divine  covenant,  over  the  Gentiles.  They  considered 
themselves  to  be  God's  elect  and  favourite  people,  but 
the  Gentiles  were  reprobates.  The  apostles  felt  them- 
selves under  the  strongest  obligations  to  oppose  these 
notions,  not  only  because,  if  allowed,  they  would  operate 
as  a  barrier  to  the  diffusion  of  the  gospel  among  the 
heathens,  and  thus  the  designs  of  divine  mercy  to  the 
world  would  be  thwarted,  but  also  because  these  Jew- 
ish sentiments  were  in  direct  opposition  to  the  grace 
of  God.  They  implied  that  the  original  design  of  God 
in  favouring  the  Jews  was  founded,  not  upon  his  mere 
mercy  and  grace,  but  upon  some  goodness  in  them  or 
their  fathers.  Hence  they  not  only  limited  the  bless- 
ings of  the  gospel,  but  they  also  corrupted  its  gracious 
character,  and  thereby  fed  their  own  Pharisaic  pride, 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  35 

and  dishonoured  God.  This  will  open  the  way  for 
explaining  many  other  scriptures  which  the  Calvinists 
press  into  their  service. 

2.  Especially  will  it  assist  in  explaining  those  pas- 
sages which  speak  of  election  as  depending  solely  on 
the  sovereign  will  of  God.  The  strongest  of  these  are 
in  the  ninth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans. 
This  portion  of  revelation  is  the  stronghold,  as  is  sup- 
posed, of  Calvinism.  Whereas,  we  humbly  conceive 
that  there  is  not  one  ivord,  in  the  whole  chapter,  of 
unconditional  and  personal  election  to  eternal  life.  It 
is  only  necessary  to  read  that  epistle  carefully,  to  see 
that  the  apostle  is  combating  that  exclusive  and  Phari- 
saic doctrine  of  the  Jews,  already  alluded,  to,  and  is 
proving  in  a  forcible  strain  of  argumentation,  from 
reason  and  Scripture,  that  the  foundation  of  the  plan 
of  salvation  for  sinners  was  the  goodness  and  un- 
merited love  of  God — that  all,  both  Jews  and  Gentiles, 
were  sinners,  and  therefore  stood  in  the  same  relation 
to  God — all  equally  eligible  to  salvation,  and  must, 
if  saved  at  all,  be  saved  on  the  same  terms.  To  prove 
this,  he  argues  strenuously  that  God's  favour  to  the 
Jews,  as  a  nation,  was  not  of  any  goodness  in  them, 
but  of  his  own  sovereign  will  and  pleasure,  so  that  his 
covenant  of  favour  with  the.  Hebrews,  and  his  cove- 
nant of  grace  which  embraced  the  Gentiles,  was  "  not 
of  works,  lest  any  man  should  boast,"  "  not  of  him  that 
willeth,  nor  of  him  that  runneth,  but  of  God  that^ 
showeth  mercy."  The  apostle  shows  them,  too,  that 
the  covenant  made  with  Abraham  was  not  for  circum- 
cision, nor  for  the  works  of  the  law,  so  far  as  it  affected 
him  or  his  posterity,  because  it  was  made  while  Abra- 
ham was  in  uncircumcision,  and  on  the  condition 
of  faith.     He  argues  farther,  that  this  election  of  the 


36  CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY. 

Jews  to  the  enjoyment  of  these  national  and  ecclesias- 
tical privileges  was  not  because  they  were  children 
of  Abraliam,  for  Ishmael  was  a  child  of  Abraham,  and 
yet  he  and  his  posterity  were  rejected ;  nor  yet  because 
they  were  the  children  of  Abraham  through  Isaac,  be- 
cause Esau  and  his  posterity  were  reprobated  from 
these  national  privileges,  while  Jacob  and  his  posterity 
were  the  chosen  seed — not  chosen  to  eternal  life,  be- 
cause many  of  them  perished  in  sin  and  unbelief,  but 
to  the  peculiar  privileges  of  God's  covenant  people. 
And  all  this  because  it  was  the  good  pleasure  of  his 
will.  And  as  a  sovereign,  he  had  the  same  right  to 
elect  the  Gentiles  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  covenant 
of  mercy,  and  upon  the  same  conditions  of  faith.  The 
apostle  concludes  this  reasoning  by  an  argument  which 
cuts  off  entirely  the  idea  of  unconditional  personal 
election  and  reprobation.  He  informs  us  that  the 
reason  why  the  unbelieving  Jews  did  not  attain  to 
personal  righteousness,  was  "  because  they  sought  it 
not  by  faith,  but  as  it  were  by  the  works  of  the  law ;" 
and  the  Gentiles  attained  to  personal  righteousness, 
because  tliey  sought  it  by  faith.  Hence,  those  that 
were  not  his  people  became  his  people,  and  those  that 
were  not  beloved  became  beloved — and  these,  "not 
of  the  Jews  only,  but  also  of  the  Gentiles."  Whereas, 
if  the  doctrine  we  oppose  be  true,  the  elect  were  alio  ays 
his  people,  and  always  beloved,  and  that  because  he 
pleased  to  have  it  so.  That  portion  of  Scripture,  there- 
fore, on  which  Calvinism  leans  for  its  greatest  support, 
not  only  aftbrds  it  no  aid,  but  actually  teaches  a  differ- 
ent doctrine.  There  is  indeed  something  of  mystery 
hanging  over  the  providence  of  God,  in  bestowing 
peculiar  advantages  on  some,  and  withholding  them 
from  others.     But  on  this  subject  much  light  is  cast 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY.  37 

from  various  considerations  which  we  have  not  time 
to  enlarge  upon  ;  but  especially  from  that  wholesome 
and  consistent  Scripture  doctrine,  that  "  it  is  required 
of  a  man  accordhig  to  what  he  hath,  and  not  accord- 
ing to  what  he  hath  not."      This  removes  at  once  all 
complaint  of  Jew  and  Gentile,  and  authorizes  the  reply, 
so  often  misapplied,  "  Who  art  thou  that  repliest  against 
God?"     As  a  sovereign,  God  has  a  right  to  make  his 
creatures  differ  in  these  things,  so  long  as  he  requires 
only  as  he  gives.     But  this  differs  as  widely  from  the 
Calvinistic  idea  of  sovereignty,  as  justice  from  injus- 
tice, as  equity  from  iniquity.     In  fact,  God  nowhere 
in  the  Scripture  places  the  election  of  individuals  to 
eternal  life  solely  on  the  ground  of  his  sovereignty, 
but  uniformly  on  the  ground  of  their  complying  with 
the  conditions  of  the  covenant  of  grace.     Hence  his 
people  are   a  j^eciiliar  people — his   sheep  hear  his 
voice  and  folloiv  him — they  are  chosen  out  of  the 
tvorld — they  are  iii  Christ,  not  by  an  eternal  decree 
of  election,  but  by  faith — for  "  if  any  man  be  i?i  Christ, 
he  is  a  new  creature'^ — and,  of  course,  he  is  not  in 
him  until  he  is  a  "  new  creature" — then,  and  not  be- 
fore, they  become  his,  and  he  seals  them  as  such — "  In 
whom,  after  that  ye  believed,  ye  were  sealed  with 
the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise."    But  if  they  were  elected 
from  eternity,  they  would  be  his  when  they  did  not 
hear  his  voice,  and  were  not  neio  creatures. 

3.  From  what  has  been  said,  we  can  easily  answer 
a  third  class  of  scriptures  which  the  Calvinists  dwell 
upon  to  support  their  system,  viz.,  those  which  declare 
salvation  to  be  oi  grace,  and  not  of  works.  Of  these 
there  is  evidendy  a  large  catalogue  of  very  express 
and  unequivocal  passages.  Take  two  or  three  for  an 
example  of  the  whole  :  "  Even  so  then,  at  the  present 


do  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

time,  there  is  a  remnant,  according  to  the  election 
of  grace ;  and  if  it  be  by  grace,  then  it  is  no  more 
of  works,  otherwise  grace  is  no  more  grace ;  but  if  it 
be  of  works,  then  it  is  no  more  grace,  otherwise  work 
is  no  more  work."  "  By  grace  ye  are  saved."  "Having 
predestinated  us  unto  the  adoption  of  children,  <fec., 
to  the  praise  of  the  glory  of  his  grace."  "  Not  by 
works  of  righteousness  which  we  have  done,  but  ac 
cording  to  his  mercy,  he  saved  us,  by  the  washing  of 
regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Now 
we  profess  to  beheve  these  scriptures  as  unqualifiedly 
and  as  cordially  as  the  Calvinists  ;  and  we  think  them 
perfectly  in  accordance  with  our  views  of  election. 
For  we  believe,  as  has  been  already  stated,  that  God's 
plan  for  saving  sinners  originated  entirely  in  his  love 
to  his  undeserving  creatures.  There  was  nothing  in 
all  the  character  and  circimistances  of  the  fallen 
family,  except  their  sin  and  deserved  misery,  that 
could  claim  the  interposition  of  God's  saving  power. 
The  way  of  executing  his  gracious  plan,  and  render- 
ing it  available  in  any  case,  he  of  course,  as  a  sove- 
reign, reserved  to  himself  And  if  he  saw  that  a 
conditional  election  was  best  suited  to  the  principles 
of  his  government,  and  the  responsibility  of  man, 
shall  it  be  said,  this  cannot  be,  for  it  destroys  the  idea 
of  grace  ?  Cannot  a  conditional  election  be  of  grace  ? 
Let  the  intelligent  and  candid  answer.  Even  many 
of  the  Calvinists  acknowledge  that  salvation  is  con- 
ditional, and  yet  it  is  of  grace  ;  for  "  by  grace  ye  are 
saved."  Now  if  salvation  is  conditional,  and  yet 
of  grace,  why  not  election  ?  Let  Calvinists  answer 
this  question. 

But  that  our  doctrine  of  election  is  of  grace,  will 
appear  evident,  I  think,  from  tlie  following  considera- 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  39 

tions.  1.  It  was  pure,  unmerited  love  that  moved 
God  to  provide  salvation  for  our  world.  2.  The 
gospel  plan,  therefore,  with  all  its  provisions  and  con- 
ditions, is  of  grace.  Not  a  step  in  that  whole  system 
but  rests  in  grace,  is  presented  by  grace,  and  is 
executed  through  grace.  3.  Even  the  power  of  the 
will  to  choose  life,  and  the  conditions  of  life,  is  a 
gracious  power.  A  fallen  man,  without  grace,  could 
no  more  choose  to  submit  to  God  than  a  fallen  angel. 
Herein  we  differ  widely  from  the  Calvinists.  They 
tell  us  man  has  a  natural  power  to  choose  life.  If  so, 
he  has  power  to  get  to  heaven  without  grace !  We 
say,  on  the  contrary,  that  man  is  utterly  unable  to 
choose  the  way  to  heaven,  or  to  pursue  it  when 
chosen,  without  the  grace  of  God.  It  is  grace  that 
enlightens  and  convinces  the  sinner,  and  strengthens 
him  to  seek  after  and  obtain  salvation,  for  "  without 
Christ  we  can  do  nothing.^''  Let  the  candid  judge 
between  us,  then,  and  decide  which  system  most  robs 
our  gracious  Redeemer  of  his  glory,  that  which  gives 
man  a  native  and  i?iherent  power  to  get  to  heaven 
of  himself,  or  that  which  attributes  all  to  grace. 
4.  Finally,  when  the  sinner  repents  and  believes,  there 
is  no  merit  in  these  acts  to  procure  forgiveness  and  re- 
generation, and  therefore,  though  he  is  now,  and  07i 
these  conditions,  elected  and  made  an  heir  of  salva- 
tion, yet  it  is  for  Christ's  sake,  and  "  not  for  works  of 
righteousness  which  he  has  done."  Thus  we  "  bring 
forth  the  topstone  with  shouting,  crying  Grace,  grace, 
unto  it."  Having  gone  over  and  examined  the  argu- 
ments in  favour  of  unconditional  election,  we  come  to 
the  last  part  of  our  subject ;  which  was,  to  urge  some 
objections  against  this  doctrine. 

1 .  The  doctrine  of  the  unconditional  election  of  a 


40 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 


part,  necessarily  implies  the  unconditional  reprobation 
of  the  rest.     I  know  some  who  hold  to  the  former, 
seem  to  deny  the  latter ;  for  they  represent  God  as 
reprobating  sinners  in  view  of  their  sins.     When  all 
were  sinners,   they  say   God   passed  by  some,  and 
elected  others.     Hence,  they  say  the  decree  of  damna- 
tion against  the  reprobates  is  just,  because  it  is  against 
sinners.     But  this  explanation  is  virtually  giving  up 
the  system,  inasmuch  as  it  gives  up  all  the  principal 
arguments  by  which  it  is  supported.     In  the  first 
place,  it  makes  predestination  dependent  on  foreknow- 
ledge ;  for  God  first  foresees  that  they  will  be  sinners, 
and  then  predestinates  them  to  punishment.     Here  is 
one  case,  then,  in  which  the  argument  for  Calvinian 
predestination    is   destroyed  by   its   own   supporters. 
But  again  :  if  God  must  fix  by  his  decree  all  parts  of 
his  plan,  in  order  to  prevent  disappointment,  then  he 
must  fix  the  destiny  of  the  reprobates  and  the  means 
that  lead  to  it.     But  if  he  did  not  do  this,  then  the 
Calvinistic   argument  in    favour   of   predestination, 
drawn  from  the  divine  plan,  falls  to  the  ground. 
Once  more  :  this  explanation  of  the  decree  of  reproba- 
tion destroys  all  the  strongest  Scripture  arguments 
which  the  Calvinists  urge  in  favour  of  unconditional 
election.     The  passages,  for  instance,  in  the  ninth  of 
Romans,   which   are   so   often   quoted  in  favour  of 
Calvinian  election,  are  connected  with  others,  equally 
strong,  in  favour  of  unconditional  reprobation.    When 
it  is  said,  "He  will  have  mercy  on  whom  he  will 
have   mercy,"   it  is   said  also,   "Whom  he  will  he 
hardeneth."     He  that  "  makes  one  vessel  unto  honour, 
maketh  another   unto   dishonour."      He    that  says, 
"  Jacob  have  I  loved,"  says  also  in  the  same  manner, 
"  Esau  have  I  hated."     Now  if  these  relate  to  per- 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY.  41 

sonal  election  to  eternal  life,  they  relate  also  to  per- 
sonal reprobation  to  eternal  death.  But  if  there  is 
any  explanation,  by  which  these  are  showed  not  to 
prove  unconditional  reprobation  to  eternal  death,  the 
same  principle  of  explanation  will,  and  must  show, 
that  they  do  not  prove  Calvinistic  election.  From 
henceforth,  therefore,  let  all  those  Calvinists  who  pro- 
fess not  to  believe  in  unconditional  reprobation  cease 
to  urge,  in  favour  of  their  system,  any  arguments 
drawn  from  the  foreknowledge  of  God,  or  the  necessity 
of  a  divine  plan,  or  from  those  scriptures  that  are 
most  commonly  quoted  in  favour  of  their  doctrine. 
But  when  they  do  this,  their  system  must  necessarily 
fall ;  for  all  its  main  pillars  will  be  removed.  But  I 
have  not  done  with  this  objection  yet.  Whoever 
maintains  that  "God  hath  foreordained  whatsoever 
comes  to  pass,"  must  also  hold  to  unconditional  repro- 
bation. Does  it  come  to  pass  that  some  are  lost? 
Then  this  was  ordained.  Was  sin  necessary,  as  a 
pretence  to  damn  them?  Then  this  was  ordained. 
From  these  and  other  views  of  the  subject,  Calvin  was 
led  to  say  that  "  election  could  not  stand  without  re- 
probation," and  that  it  was  "  quite  silly  and  childish" 
to  attempt  to  separate  them.  All,  therefore,  who  hold 
to  the  unconditional  election  of  a  part  of  mankind  to 
eternal  life,  must,  to  be  consistent  with  themselves, 
take  into  their  creed  the  "  horrible  decree"  of  repro- 
bation. They  must  believe  that  in  the  ages  of  eternity 
God  determined  to  create  men  and  angels  for  the  ex- 
press purpose  to  damn  them  eternally  !  That  he  de- 
termined to  introduce  sin,  and  influence  men  to  com- 
mit sin,  and  harden  them  in  it,  that  they  might  be  fit 
subjects  of  his  wrath  !  That  for  doing  as  they  were 
impelled  to  do,  by  the  irresistible  decree  of  Jehovah, 


42  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

they  must  lie  down  for  ever,  under  the  scalding  vials 
of  his  vengeance  in  the  pit  of  hell !  To  state  this 
doctrine  in  its  true  character,  is  enough  to  chill  one's 
blood — and  we  are  drawn  by  all  that  is  rational  within 
us,  to  turn  away  from  such  a  God  with  horror,  as 
from  the  presence  of  an  almighty  Tyrant. 

2.  This  doctrine  of  election,  while  it  professes  to 
vindicate  free  grace  and  the  mercy  of  God,  destroys 
them  altogether.  To  the  reprobates  there  is  certainly 
no  grace  or  mercy  extended.  Their  very  existence, 
connected  as  it  necessarily  is  with  eternal  damnation, 
is  an  infinite  curse.  The  temporal  blessings  v/hich 
they  enjoy,  the  insincere  offers  that  are  held  out  to 
them;  and  the  gospel  privileges  with  which  they  are 
mocked;  if  they  can  be  termed  grace  at  all,  must  be 
called  damning  grace.  For  all  this  is  only  fattening 
them  for  the  slaughter,  and  fitting  them  to  suffer,  to  a 
more  aggravated  extent,  the  unavoidable  pains  and 
torments  that  await  them.  Hence  Calvin's  sentiment, 
that  "  God  calls  to  the  reprobates,  that  they  may  be 
more  deaf — kindles  a  light,  that  they  may  be  more 
blind — brings  his  doctrine  to  them,  that  they  may  be 
more  ignorant — and  applies  the  remedy  to  them,  that 
they  may  not  be  healed,"  is  an  honest  avowal  of  the 
legitimate  principles  of  this  system.  Surely,  then,  no 
one  will  pretend  that,  according  to  this  doctrine,  there 
is  any  grace  for  the  reprobate.  And  perhaps  a 
moment's  attention  will  show  that  there  is  little  or 
none  for  the  elect.  It  is  said  that  God,  out  of  his 
mere  sovereignty,  without  any  thing  in  the  creature 
to  move  him  thereto,  elects  sinners  to  everlasting  life. 
But  if  there  is  nothing  in  the  creature  to  move  him 
thereto,  how  can  it  be  called  mercy  or  co7npassio7i  7 
he  did  not  determine  to  elect  them  because  they  were 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  43 

miserable,  but  because  he  pleased  to  elect  them.  If 
misery  had  been  the  exciting  cause,  then,  as  all  were 
equally  miserable,  he  would  have  elected  them  all.  Is 
such  a  decree  of  election  founded  in  love  to  the  suffer- 
ing object  ?  No  :  it  is  the  result  of  the  most  absolute 
and  omnipotent  selfishness  conceivable.  It  is  the 
exhibition  of  a  character  that  sports  most  sovereignly 
and  arbitrarily,  with  his  almighty  power,  to  create^ 
to  dam>n^  and  to  save. 

Some  indeed  pretend  that,  at  any  rate,  salvation 
is  of  grace,  if  election  is  not,  because  God  saves  mi- 
serable, perishing  sinners.  But  who  made  them  mi- 
serable perishing  sinners?  Was  not  this  the  effect  of 
God's  decree  ?  And  is  there  much  mercy  displayed  in 
placing  men  under  a  constitution  which  necessarily 
and  unavoidably  involves  them  in  sin  and  suffering, 
that  God  may  afterward  have  the  sovereign  honour 
of  saving  them?  Surely  the  tenderest  mercies  of  this 
system  are  cruel — its  brightest  parts  are  dark — its 
boasted  mercy  hardly  comes  up  to  sheer  justice,  even 
to  the  elect ;  since  they  only  receive  back  what  God 
had  deprived  them  of,  and  for  the  want  of  which  they 
had  suffered  perhaps  for  years  ;  and  to  obtain  which, 
they  could  do  nothing  even  as  a  condition,  until  God 
by  his  sovereign  power  bestowed  it  upon  them.  And 
as  for  the  reprobates,  the  gospel  is  unavoidably  to 
them  a  savour  of  death  unto  death.  To  them  Christ 
came  that  they  might  have  death,  and  that  they 
might  have  it  more  abundantly.  Thus,  turn  this 
system  as  you  will,  it  sweeps  away  the  mercy  and 
goodness  of  God,  destroys  the  grace  of  the  gospel, 
and,  in  most  cases,  transforms  even  the  invitations 
and  promises  into  scalding  messages  of  aggravated 
wrath. 


44  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

3.  The  doctrine  we  oppose  makes  God  partial  and 
a  respecter  of  persons  ;   contrary  to  express  and  re- 
peated declarations  of  Scripture.     For  it  represents 
God  as  determining  to  save  some  and  damn  others, 
without  reference  to  their  character,  all  being  pre- 
cisely in  the  same  state.    To  deny  this,  is  to  acknow- 
ledge that  the  decree  of  election  and  reprobation  had 
respect  to  character,  which  is  to  give  up  the  doctrine. 
Some  indeed  pretend,  that  the  decree  of  election  was 
unconditional,  but  not  the   decree   of  reprobation. 
But  this  is  impossible ;  for  there  could  be  no  decree 
of  election,  only  in  view  of  the  whole  number  froni 
which  the  choice  was  to  be  made  ;   and  the  very  de- 
termination to  select  such  a  number,  and  those  only, 
implied  the  exclusion  of  all  the  rest.     If  it  be  said,  as 
the  Sublapsarians  contend,  that  the  decree  of  election 
did  not  come  in  until  all  were  fallen,  or  viewed  in  the 
mind  of  God  as  fallen  ;  and  therefore  since  all  might 
have  been  justly  damned,  there  was  no  injustice  to 
those  who  were  left,  though  some  of  the  guilty  were 
taken  and  saved ;    we  reply  that  even  this  would 
not  wholly  remove  the  objection  of  partiality.     But 
we  need  not  dwell  here,  because  we  have  a  shorter 
and  more  decisive  way  to  dispose  of  this  argument. 
The  truth  is,  it  does  not  cover  the  whole  ground  of 
our  objection.     Had  God  nothing  to  do  with  man 
until  his  prescient  eye  beheld  the  whole  race  in  a 
ruined  state  ?  How  came  man  in  this  state  ?  He  was 
plunged  there  by  the  sin  of  his  federal  head.     But 
how  came  he  to  sin  ?     "  Adam  sinned,"  says  Calvin, 
"  because  God  so  ordained."     And  so  every  one  must 
say,  that  believes  God  foreordained  whatsoever  comes 
to  pass.     Taking  all  the  links  together,  they  stand 
thus  : — God  decreed  to  create  intelligent  beings — he 


CALVIMSTIC   CONTROVERSY.  45 

decreed  that  they  should  all  become  sinners  and  chil- 
dren of  wrath — and  it  was  so.  He  then  decreed  that 
part  of  those  whom  he  had  constituted  heirs  of  wrath, 
should  be  taken,  and  washed,  and  saved,  and  the 
others  left  to  perish  ;  and  then  we  are  told  there  is 
no  unjust  partiality  in  God.  since  they  all  deserve 
to  be  damned !  What  a  singular  evasion  is  this  ! 
God  wishes  to  damn  a  certain  portion  of  his  creatures, 
and  save  the  rest ;  but  he  cannot  do  this  without 
subjecting  himself  to  the  charge  of  partiality.  To 
avoid  this,  he  plunges  them  all  into  sin  and  ruin, 
and  forthwith  he  declares  them  all  children  of  wrath, 
and  heirs  of  hell.  But  in  the  plenitude  of  his  grace, 
he  snatches  some  from  the  pit  of  ruin,  and  leaves 
the  rest  in  remediless  wo !  Is  such  a  supposition 
worthy  of  our  righteous  God  ?  Does  it  accord  either 
with  his  justice  or  wisdom?  Reason,  with  half  an 
eye,  can  see  through  the  flimsy  veil,  and  discover  the 
weakness  of  the  device.  I  know  an  attempt  has  been 
often  made  to  charge  these  consequences  upon  our 
system,  as  well  as  upon  the  Calvinistic  doctrine.  For 
if  it  is  acknowledged  that  man  is  born  depraved,  and 
this  depravity  is  damning  in  its  nature,  Does  it  not  fol- 
low, it  is  asked,  that  all  deserve  to  perish,  and  therefore 
God  may  elect  some  and  justly  pass  by  the  rest  ?  I 
answer, — Although  all  moral  depravity,  derived  or 
contracted,  is  damning  in  its  nature,  still,  by  virtue  of 
the  atonement,  the  destructive  effects  of  derived  depra- 
vity are  counteracted  ;  and  guilt  is  not  imputed,  until, 
by  a  voluntary  rejection  of  the  gospel  remedy,  man 
makes  the  depravity  of  his  nature  the  object  of  his  own 
choice.  Hence,  although  abstractly  considered,  this  de- 
pravity is  destructive  to  the  possessors ;  yet  through  the 
grace  of  the  gospel,  all  are  born  free  from  condemna- 


ks^  ^' 


46  CALVINISTIC  CONTROVERSY. 

-  tion.  So  the  Apostle  Paul,  "  As  by  the  oifence  of  one, 
^r^  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation,  so  by 
the  righteousness  of  one,  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men 
unto  justification  of  life."  In  accordance  with  these 
views  also,  the  ground  of  condemnation,  according  to 
the  Scriptures,  is  not  our  native  depravity ;  but  the  sin- 
ner is  condemned  for  rejecting  Christy — for  refusing 
to  occupy  upon  the  talents  given, — for  rejecting 
light, — for  quenching  the  JSpirit, — for  unbelief.  Here 
then  is  the  difference  on  this  point  between  the  Cai- 
vinists  and  us.  They  hold  that^  God,  by  his  decree, 
plunged  Adam  and  all  his  race  into  the  pit  of  sin, 
from  which  none  of  them  had  the  means  of  escape  ; 
but  by  an  omnipotent  act  of  partial  grace,  he  delivers 
a  part,  and  the  remainder  are  left  unavoidably  to 
perish.  We,  on  the  contrary,  believe  that  by  Adam's 
unnecessitated  sin  he,  and  in  him  all  his  posterity, 
became  obnoxious  to  the  curse  of  the  divine  law.  As 
the  first  man  sinned  personally  and  actively,  he  was 
personally  condemned  ;  but,  as  his  posterity  had  no 
agency  or  personal  existence,  they  could  only  have 
perished  seminally  in  him.  By  the  promise  of  a 
Saviour,  however,  our  federal  head  was  restored  to 
the  possibility  of  obtaining  salvation  through  faith  in 
the  Redeemer.  And,  in  this  restoration,  all  the  semi- 
nal generations  of  men  were  included.  Their  possible 
and  prospective  existence  was  restored  ;  and  their 
personal  and  active  existence  secured.  And  with  this, 
also,  the  possibility  of  salvation  was  secured  to  all. 
To  such  as  never  come  to  a  personally  responsible 
age,  this  salvation  was  secured  unconditionally  by 
Christ ;  ta  all  those  who  arrived  to  the  age  of  account- 
ability, salvation  was  made  possible,  on  equal  and 
impartial  conditions.     Thus,  while  on  our  principle 


CALVIMSTIC   CONTROVERSY.  47 

there  is  not  the  slightest  ground  for  a  charge  of  par- 
tiahty  ;  on  the  Calvinistic  principle,  the  charge  seems 
to  lie  with  all  its  weight.  It  makes  God,  in  the 
worst  sense  of  the  terms,  jjartlal,  and  a  respecter 
of  persojis. 

4.  This  doctrine  is  objectionable,  because,  contrary 
to  express  and  repeated  passages  of  Scripture,  it 
necessarily  limits  the  atonement.  It  will  surely  not 
be  expected  that  we  should  attempt  to  prove  that 
Christ  "  tasted  death  for  every  man" — that  he  "  gave 
himself  a  ransom  for  all" — that  he  "  died  for  all" — that 
he  became  ''  a  propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world" — because,  these  are  so  many  express  Scripture 
propositions,  and  rest  directly  on  the  authority  of  God. 
And  while  these  stand,  the  doctrine  of  particular  and 
unconditional  election  mast  fall,  for  the  two  doctrines 
are  incompatible.  That  particular  election  and  partial 
redemption  must  stand  or  fall  together,  has  been 
acknowledged,  and  is  still  maintained  by  most  Cal- 
vinists ;  and  therefore  they  have  endeavoured  to  ex- 
plain away  those  passages,  which  so  clearly  declare 
that  "Christ  died  for  all."  But  in  this  work  they 
have  found  so  many  difficulties,  that  others,  and 
among  them  most  of  the  Calvinistic  clergy  in  New- 
England,  have  acknowledged  a  general  redemption, 
and  have  undertaken  to  reconcile  with  it  the  doctrine 
of  particular  election  and  reprobation.  But  this  re- 
conciliation is  as  difficult  as  the  other.  To  say 
nothing  now  of  the  utter  uselessness  of  making  an 
atonement  for  the  reprobates,  unless  for  the  purpose 
of  making  their  unavoidable  damnation  more  aggra- 
vated, we  would  ask,  What  is  the  object  of  the  atone- 
ment 1  Let  these  very  Calvinists  themselves  answer. 
They  tell  us  that  its  object  was,  to  open  the  way,  by 


48 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 


which  it  might  be  possible  for  sinners  to  be  saved. 
But  has  the  atonement  made  it  possible  for  the  repro- 
bates to  be  saved  ?  If  so,  then  perhaps  they  will  be 
saved,  and  therefore  ths  idea  of  unconditional  election 
and  reprobation  is  false.  But  if  the  atonement  has 
only  made  it  possible  for  the  elect  to  be  saved,  then  it 
was  made  only  for  the  elect.  Let  the  supporters  of 
this  system  choose  which  horn  of  this  dilemma  they 
please;  either  will  destroy  their  doctrine.  For  as  it  is 
absurd  to  talk  about  redeeming  grace  and  gospel  pro- 
visions, sufficient  to  save  those  who  are  eternally  and 
eifectually  excluded  from  these  blessings,  so  it  is  idle 
to  talk  about  a  redemption  for  all^  which  includes 
provisions  sufficient  only  to  save  the  elect.  Not  even 
the  fiction  of  a  7iatural  ahility  in  all  men  to  serve  God 
and  get  to  heaven,  \A\\  help  this  difficulty.  For 
allowing,  in  the  argument,  that  the  reprobates  have 
ability  to  serve  God  and  gain  heaven,  without  s^race, 
and  in  spite  of  God's  decree,  still,  as  this  is  called  a 
natural  ability,  it  is  plain  it  is  not  the  fruit  of  the 
atonement.  It  is  equally  irrelevant  to  argue  that  the 
atonement  may  be  said  to  be  universal,  because  it  con- 
tains enough  to  save  the  whole  world,  if  they  would 
or  could  embrace  it,  and  it  is  only  their  excessive 
depravity  which  renders  it  impossible  for  them  to 
receive  the  atonement.  For  this  is  the  same  as  to  say, 
that  a  physician  has  an  efficient  remedy  to  heal  his 
patient,  only  he  is  so  sick  he  cannot  take  it.  This 
excessive  weakness  is  that  for  which  the  physician 
should  prescribe,  and  to  which  the  medicine  should 
be  applied.  And  if  it  does  not  come  to  this  it  is  no 
medicine  for  this  case.  So  the  atonement,  if  it  is  not 
a  remedy  for  man's  extreme  depravity,  it  is  no  provi- 
sion for  him.     If  it  does  not  give  a  gracious  power  to 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  49 

all  sinners  to  embrace  salvation,  it  has  accomplished 
nothing-  for  the  depraved  reprobate.     Since,  therefore, 
according  to  Calvinism,  the  atonement  provides  for 
the  reprobate  neither  natural  nor   moral   ability  to 
serve  God,  nor  makes  it  possible  for  him  to  be  saved, 
It  follows  that  the  atonement  is  made  only  for  the 
elect.     But  as  this  is  contrary  to  the  word  of  God, 
the  doctrine  that  leads  to  this  conclusion  must  be  false. 
5.  If  time  would  permit,  I  might  here  notice  at 
some  length  several  objections  to  this  doctrine  : — Such 
as  that  it  takes  away  all  motives  to  repentance,  by 
^^•^  giving  the  sinner  just  cause  to  say,-^" If  L-adJo  be 
-saved,  I  shall  be,  do  what  I  may ;  and  if  I  am  to  be 
y    aamned,  I  mu-st  be,  do  what  I  can  ;"it-it  leads  to  the 
***'idea  of  infant  damnation — it  weakens  the  zeal  and 
t»-^' paralyzes  the  efforts  of  devotrbn  and  benevolence — it 
■^^  'de*stroys  the  end  of  punishment,  the  original  design  of 
r**"*  which  was  to  prevent  sin,  but  which,  according  to 
A  ^Ihis  doctrine,  was  designed  merely  for  the  glory  ot 
God  ;  and  sin  was  ordained  for  the  purpose  of  giving 
God  an  opp^'tunij;}r  of  glorifying  himself  in  punishing 
_J^  it.    These  and*'  others   might   be   dwelt  upon   with 
"effect;  but  passing  them  all,  I  hasten  to  the  conclu- 
sion of  my  arguments,   by  urging  only   one   more 
* '.:  ¥-  objection  to  the  system  I  am  opposing. 
,  ^  ^     6.  We   are  suspicious   of   this    doctrine,   because 
^J'^^its  advocates  themselves  seem  studious  to  cover  up 
and  keep  out  of  sight  many  of  its  features,  and  are 
constantly   changing  their    manner   of   stating   and 
defending  their   system.      A   little   attention   to   the 
history  of  the   controversy  between   predestinarians 
and  their  opposers  will  show  the  truth  and  force  of 
this  objection.     The  charge  that  Calvinism  covers  up 
and  keeps  out   of  sight  some  of  its  most  offensive 


50  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

features,  does  not  lie  so  much  against  its  advocates  of 
the  old  school,  as  those  of  the  modern.  With  the 
exception  of  some  logical  consequences,  which  we  think 
chargeable  upon  the  system,  and  which  they  were 
unwilling  to  allow,  these  early  defenders  of  uncondi- 
tional election  came  out  boldly  and  fearlessly  with 
their  doctrine.  If  modern  Calvinists  would  do  the 
same,  we  should  need  no  other  refutation  of  the  system. 
But  even  the  early  supporters  of  Calvinism,  when 
pressed  by  their  opponents,  resorted  to  various  forms 
of  explanation  and  modes  of  proof,  and  also  to  various 
modifications  of  the  system  itself  Goodwin,  in  his  .  ^^ 
work  entitled,  "Agreement  of  Brethren,"  (fcc,  says  : —  ^'^ 
''  The  question,  as  to  the  object  of  the  decrees,  ha^  r  ** 
gone  out  among  our  Calvinistic  brethren  into  endless  • '♦^» 
digladiations  and  irreconcilable  divisions,"  and  then 
goes  on  to  mention  nine  of  these  "  irreconcilable  divi- 
sions" that  prevailed  at  his  day.  At  the  present  day 
these  school  subtleties  are  not  so  prevalent ;  but 
numerous  changes  of  a  more  popular  cast,  and  such 
as  are  suited  to  cover  up  the  offensive  features  of  the 
system,  are  now  introduced.  The  modern  defence 
of  this  doctrine  consists  chiefly  in  the  dexterous  use 
of  certain  ambiguous  technicalities,  which,  in  this 
theology,  mean  one  thing,  and  in  common  language 
another.  And  this  is  carried  to  such  an  extent,  that 
it  is  now  a  common  thing  to  hear  parishioners  con- 
tend strenuously  that  their  pastors  do  not  hold  to  pre- 
destination, when  it  is  well  known  to  some,  at  least, 
that  they  do ;  and  that  they  are  exerting  themselves 
to  spread  the  sentiment. 

This  is  a  subject,  permit  me  here  to  say,  on  which 
I  touch  with  more  reluctance  than  upon  any  other 
point  involved  in  this  controversy.     To  represent  the 


CALVINIStiC   CONTROVERSY.  51 

thing  as  it  is,  seems  so  much  like  accusing  our  brethren 
of  insincerity  and  duplicity,  that  nothing  but  a  regard 
to  truth  would  induce  me  to  allude  to  it.  Whether 
this  arises  from  an  excessive  but  honest  zeal  for  their 
system,  or  whether  it  is  supposed  the  cause  is  so 
important,  and  at  the  same  time  so  difficult  to  be  sus- 
tained, that  the  end  will  justify  what,  in  other  cases, 
would  be  judged  questionable  policy,  and  hardly  re- 
concilable with  the  spirit  of  a  guileless  Christianity, 
is  certainly  not  for  me  to  decide.  With  respect  to 
their  motives,  they  will  stand  or  fall  by  the  judgment 
of  Him  that  trieth  the  reins.  But  the  course,  at 
any  rate,  seems  very  reprehensible.  Take  one  in- 
stance : — All  sinners,  we  are  told,  may  come  to  Christ 
if  they  will ;  and  therefore  they  are  criminal  if  they 
do  not.  Now  this  mode  of  speech  corresponds  very 
well  with  Scripture  and  reason.  And  who,  that  had 
not  been  specially  instructed  in  the  dialect  of  this  the- 
ology, would  understand  that  this  mode  of  speech, 
according  to  Hopkinsian  technics,  implied  an  inability 
and  an  impossibility  of  obtaining  salvation  ?  And  yet 
this  is  the  fact :  for  though,  according  to  this  system, 
if  we  have  a  will  to  come  to  Christ,  we  may,  yet  by 
a  divine  constitution  it  is  as  much  impossible  to  have 
this  will  as  it  is  to  break  the  decree  of  Jehovah.  Hence 
all  such  modes  of  speech  are  worse  than  unmeaning  ; 
they  have  a  deceptive  meaning.  They  mean  one 
thing  in  this  creed,  and  another  thing  in  popular  lan- 
guage. It  never  occurs  to  the  generality  of  mankind, 
when  they  are  told  they  may  do  thus  and  thus,  if  they 
will,  that  there  is  a  secret  omnipotent  influence  impel- 
ling and  controlling  the  will.  They  suppose  these 
expressions,  therefore,  mean  that,  independent  of  all 
irresistible  foreign  influences,  they  have,  within  them- 


53  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

selves,  tne  power  to  choose  or  not  to  choose :  and  yet 
the  real  meaning  of  the  speaker  differs  as  much  from 
this  as  a  negative  differs  from  an  affirmative. 

In  perfect  accordance  with  the  foregoing,  is  the 
common  explanation  that  is  given  to  the  doctrine  of 
election  and  reprobation.  Reprobation  is  kept  out  of 
sight ;  and  yet  it  is  as  heartily  beheved  by  modern  Cal- 
vinists  as  it  was  by  John  Calvin  himself  It  is  taught 
too;  but  it  is  taught  covertly.  And  yet  when  we 
quote  old-fashioned  Calvinism,  in  its  primitive,  plain 
dress,  we  are  told  these  are  old  authors  ;  we  do  not 
believe  with  them :  "if  we  had  lived  in  the  days  of  our 
fathers,  we  would  not  have  been  partakers  with  them 
in  their  errors"  and  yet  "they  are  witnesses  unto 
themselves,  that  they  are  the  children  of  them"  who 
taught  these  errors.  They  recommend  their  writings, 
they  garnish  their  sepulchres,  they  teach  their  cate- 
chisftifi  to  the  rising  generation  ;  they  say,  even  in 
their  church  articles  of  faith,  "  We  believe  in  the  doc- 
trines of  grace,  as  held  and  taught  by  the  fathers  and 
reformers  in  the  church," — and  especially  do  they 
hold  to  that  root  and  foundation  of  the  whole  system, 
"  God  hath,  from  all  eternity,  foreordained  whatsoever 
comes  to  pass." 

Since  I  have  alluded  to  church  articles,  it  will  be  i\\ 
support  of  this  objection  to  say  that  the  written  creeds 
of  churches  partake  of  this  same  ambiguous  character. 
They  are  either  expressed  in  texts  of  Scripture,  or  in 
doubtful  and  obscure  terms  ;  so  that  different  con 
structions  can  be  put  upon  them,  according  to  the  faith 
of  the  subscriber.  And  instances  have  been  known, 
in  which  articles  of  faith  have  been  altered,  again  and 
again,  to  accommodate  scrupulous  candidates.  And 
yet  their  candidates  for  holy  orders,  and  for  professor- 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  53 

ships  in  their  theological  institutions,  are  required  to 
subscribe  to  a  rigid  Calvinistic  creed.  In  this  way  it 
is  expected,  doubtless,  that  the  doctrine  will  be  main- 
tained and  perpetuated,  though  in  other  respects  pub- 
lic opinion  should  be  accommodated.  How  would 
honest  John  Calvin,  if  he  could  be  introduced  among 
us,  with  the  same  sentiments  he  had  when  on  earth, 
frown  upon  the  churches  that  bear  his  name !  He 
would  not  only  call  them  "  silly  and  childish,"  but  he 
would,  doubtless,  in  his  bold,  blunt  manner,  charge 
them  with  disingenuousness  and  cowardice,  if  not 
with  downright  duplicity,  for  thus  shunning  and 
smoothing  over  and  covering  up  the  more  repulsive 
features  of  their  system.  How  would  he  chide  them 
for  shifting  their  ground,  and  changing  their  system, 
while  they  nevertheless  pretend  to  build  on  the  same 
foundation  of  predestination  !  He  would,  we  believe, 
sternly  inquire  of  them  what  they  meant  by  saying, 
all  sinners,  not  excepting  reprobates,  may  come  to 
Christ  and  be  saved  ? — why  they  pretended  to  hold  to 
election,  and  not  to  reprobation  ? — how  they  could  re- 
concile general  tedemption  with  particular  election  ? — 
and  especially  would  he  frown  indignantly  upon  that 
new  doctrine,  lately  preached  and  defended  in  what 
has  been  supposed  to  be  the  head  quarters  of  ortho- 
doxy in  New-England,  by  which  we  are  taught  that 
derived  depravity  is  not  any  taint  or  sinful  corruption 
of  our  moral  constitution,  but  consists,  exclusively  and 
entirely,  in  moral  exercise !  But  probably  he  would 
get  little  satisfaction  from  those  who  profess  his  creed 
and  bear  his  name.  They  would  tell  him  that  the  old 
forms  of  this  system  were  so  repulsive,  the  people 
would  not  receive  them  ;  and  that,  being  hard  pressed 
by  their  antagonists,  they  had  thrown  up  these  new 
redoubts,  and  assumed  these  new  positions,  not  only 


64  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

to  conceal  their  doctrine,  but,  if  possible,  to  defend  it. 
And  as  he  con  Id  get  little  satisfaction  of  them^  he 
would  get  less  from  us.  Could  we  meet  the  venera- 
ble reformer,  we  would  thank  him  for  his  successful 
zeal  and  labour  in  the  Protestant  cause ;  but  we 
would  expostulate  with  him  for  giving  sanction  and 
currency  to  his  "horrible  decree."  We  would  tell 
him  he  had  committed  to  his  followers  a  system  so 
abhorrent  to  reason,  and  so  difficult  to  be  supported 
by  Scripture,  that  they  had  been  driven  into  all  these 
changes  in  hope  of  finding  some  new  and  safe  ground 
of  defence ;  and  that,  while  we  considered  this  as  a 
striking  and  convincing  argument  against  the  doc- 
trine itself,  we  viewed  it  as  auspicious  of  its  final 
overthrow;  that  these  changes,  refinements,  and 
concealments  were  symptoms  that  the  doctrine  was 
waxing  old,  and  was  ready  to  vanish  away. 

But  I  must  conclude  this  discourse.  To  your 
serious  consideration.  Christian  brethren,  I  commend 
the  sentiments  contained  in  it.  Whatever  you  may 
think  of  the  discourse  itself,  I  cannot  fail,  I  think,  of 
escaping  censure.  Those  who  accord  with  the  senti- 
ments here  defended,  will  of  course  approve  ;  and 
those  who  believe  in  predestination  will  of  course  be 
reconciled  to  the  preaching  because  God  hath  decreed 
it.  It  hath  come  to  pass  that  I  have  preached  as  I 
have,  and  therefore  it  is  a  part  of  the  divine  plan.  It 
has  come  to  pass  that  Arminianism  exists,  and  there- 
fore this  is  a  part  of  the  divine  plan.  We  beg  our 
brethren  who  differ  from  us,  not  to  fight  against  God's 
plan.  If  they  say  it  is  right  for  us  to  fight  against  it, 
because  this  also  is  decreed — I  answer.  This  only 
confirms  our  objections  against  the  system,  for  it 
arrays  the  Deity  against  himself  From  all  such  in- 
consistencies may  the  God  of  truth  deliver  us.  Amen. 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  66 


NUMBER  I. 


This  sermon  had  been  before  the  public  ahnost 
two  years  before  it  received  any  notice,  so  far  as  the 
author  is  informed,  from  any  of  the  advocates  of  pre- 
destination. After  the  third  edition  was  announced, 
there  were  several  passing  acrimonious  censures  in 
some  of  the  Calvinistic  periodicals,  which  did  not 
affect  the  merits  of  the  question  at  issue  between  us 
and  the  predestinarians.  At  length  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Tyler,  of  this  city,  (Middletown,  Conn.,)  published  a 
sermon  which  was  evidently  written  in  reference  to 
the  sermon  on  predestination.  This  sermon  of  Mr. 
Tyler  might  have  been  noticed ;  but  its  general  posi- 
tions were  so  indefinite,  and  its  modes  of  illustration  so 
vague,  it  seemed  hardly  calculated  to  narrow  the  field 
of  controversy  or  hasten  a  decision  of  the  question  at 
issue.  For  example  :  Mr.  Tyler  defines  election  to  be 
"  the  eternal  purpose  of  God  to  renew,  sanctify,  and 
save  every  man  whom  he  wisely  can,  and  no  others." 
With  such  a  proposition  there  certainly  can  be  no 
controversy,  for  it  leaves  the  subject  more  vague,  and 
the  point  in  dispute  more  confused,  than  before  a 
definition  was  attempted.  There  are  two  errors,  the 
antipodes  of  each  other,  which,  in  all  controversy,  and 
especially  religious  controversy,  ought  to  be  carefully 
guarded  against.  The  one  is  an  attempt  to  make  the 
subjects    of  difference   more  numerous  and  conse- 

*  The  review  of  the  sermon  in  the  Christian  Spectator  is 
understood  to  be  from  the  pen  of  Doctor  Fitch,  professor  tn 
Yale  College. 


66  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

quential  than  they  are  in  truth  ;  and  the  other  is  an 
attempt  to  cover  up  real  differences  under  indefinite 
propositions  and  ambiguous  terms.  Both  these  errors 
may  be  the  result  of  honest  motives :  the  former  may 
arise  from  a  jealous  regard  to  the  truth,  and  the  latter 
from  a  love  of  peace.  Both,  however,  are  injurious  ; 
for  neither  does  the  one  promote  the  cause  of  truth, 
nor  does  the  other  secure  a  permanent  peace.  Indeed, 
bringing  antagonist  principles  into  contact  gives  an 
additional  impulse  to  their  repellent  forces,  so  that  a 
transient  union  produces,  in  the  end,  greater  discord. 
Though  the  controversy  in  the  church,  between 
Calvinists  and  Arminians,  has  been  long  and  injuri- 
ous ;  yet,  as  an  individual,  I  never  can  sign  a  iinion 
creed  of  doubtful  terms  and  ambiguous  articles.  Nor 
can  I  deem  it  worth  my  while  to  contend  about  such 
terms  and  articles.  I  should  fear  the  searching  inter- 
rogatory of  Him  who  questioned  Job  :  "  Who  is  this 
that  darken eth  counselby  words  without  knowledge?" 
In  the  present  controversy  there  is  danger  of  this 
ambiguity ^also  from  a  less  commendable  principle 
than  a  love  of  peace,  viz.,  an  adherence  to  old  sym- 
bols of  faith  to  avoid  the  imputation  of  a  change ; 
while,  at  the  same  time,  to  escape  the  force  of  urian 
swerable  argument,  vague  propositions,  ambiguous 
definitions,  and  equivocal  terms  are  made  the  bulwark 
of  defence.  This  principle  was  alluded  to  in  the 
sermon  on  predestination  ;  and  although  it  has  given 
great  oflfence  to  some  of  the  Calvinists,  and  is  repre- 
sented by  the  author  of  the  review  which  we  are  about 
to  notice  as  being  "  utterly  unworthy  of  the  attention 
of  a  person  who  is  honestly  inquiring  after  truth ;"  yet 
it  seems  to  me  he  knows  little  of  his  own  heart  who 
thinks  himself  incapable  of  such  a  course.     Nor  does 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY.  57 

it  seem  utterly  unworthy  of  an  honest  inquirer  after 
truth  to  mark  the  effects  of  arguments  upon  systems, 
since  the  changes  effected  in  those  systems,  by  the 
arguments  urged  against  them,  show  the  strength  of 
the  one  and  the  weakness  of  the  other.  If,  therefore, 
I  should  undertake  to  answer  Mr.  Tyler's  sermon,  my 
strictures  would  consist  chiefly  in  pointing  out  its 
indefiniteness  and  incongruity.  But  this,  without 
convincing,  might  give  offence.  And  although  I  see 
no  way  of  continuing  the  controversy,  as  the  Cal- 
vinists  now  manage  it,  without  alluding  to  this  course 
of  the  advocates  of  predestination,  yet  I  am  happy  to 
say  there  is  less  of  it  in  the  "  review"  before  us  than  is 
common  in  modern  treatises  on  that  subject.  Though 
it  is  a  laboured  article  of  about  forty-three  pages,  yet 
it  is  generally  in  a  manly  style,  and  sustained  by  a 
train  of  close  and  skilful  argumentation.  It  would 
afford  me  great  pleasure  to  be  able  to  equal  the  re- 
viewer's ingenuity,  and  still  more  to  throw  into  my 
reply  the  serenity  of  his  spirit.  I  have  little  occasion, 
however,  in  the  present  case,  to  dread  his  talents  or 
lose  my  temper ;  for  if  I  understand  the  reviewer, 
though  his  essay  bears  upon  it,  if  not  the  "  rugged"  at 
least  the  decided  "aspect  of  controversy"  with  my 
sermon,  he  is  nevertheless  in  principle  an  Arminian. 
I  allude  now  more  especially  to  his  views  of  predesti- 
nation. On  election  there  is  evidently  a  greater  differ- 
ence between  us  ;  and  yet  it  strikes  me  when  a  man 
discards  Calvinian  predestination,  consistency  would 
require  that  the  peculiarities  of  Calvinian  election 
should  be  discarded  also.  At  any  rate,  as  the  settling 
of  the  former  question  will  have  a  very  strong  bearing 
upon  the  other,  I  shall  confine  myself  in  this  article  to 
predestination.     I  am  not  certain  that  I  understand  the 

3* 


58  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

reviewer ;  but  his  candour  authorizes  me  to  believe 
that  he  will  explain  himself  frankly,  and  correct  me 
if  I  misunderstand  him.  If  we  are  agreed  on  this 
point  we  ought  to  know  it,  and  give  over  the  contro- 
versy. If  we  are  not,  let  us  know  the  precise  ground 
of  difference.  And  in  either  case  we  shall  be  the 
better  prepared  to  pursue  the  question  of  election. 

The  question  in  dispute  is  simply  this :  What  rela- 
tion is  there  between  the  decrees  or  purposes  of  God 
and  the  responsible  acts  of  man?  The  Arminian 
views  on  this  question,  as  I  understand  them,  are 
these :  God,  as  a  Sovereign,  in  deciding  upon  his 
works,  had  a  right  to  determine  on  such  a  system  as 
pleased  him ;  but,  being  infinitely  wise  and  good,  he 
would  of  course  choose,  in  the  contemplation  of  all 
possible  systems,  to  create  such  a  one  as,  all  things 
considered,  would  bring  the  most  glory  to  himself, 
and  the  greatest  good  to  the  universe.  In  infmite 
wisdom  he  decided  that  such  a  system  would  be  a 
moral  government^  consisting  of  himself,  as  the 
supreme  and  rightful  Governor,  and  of  intelligent 
subjects,  having  full  and  unrestrained  power  to  obey 
or  disobey  the  mandates  of  their  Sovereign.  He  fore- 
saw that  one  of  the  unavoidable  incidents  of  such  a 
government  would  be  the  possible  existence  of  moral 
evil ;  and,  in  glancing  through  the  proposed  system, 
he  foresaw  that  moral  evil  would  certaijily  exist,  in- 
volving innumerable  multitudes  in  its  ruinous  conse- 
quences. He  did  not  approve  of  the  evil ;  he  did  not 
decree  that  it  should  exist ;  but  still  evil  was  a  remote 
result  of  a  decree  of  his  ;  for  although  he  foresaw  that 
if  he  made  such  free  agents,  and  governed  them  in 
the  manner  proposed,  they  would  certainly  sin,  yet  he 
determined,  notwithstanding  this  certainty^  to  make 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY.  69 

these  agents  and  govern  them  as  proposed.  He  deter- 
mined, however,  that  they  should  be  under  no  neces- 
sity of  sinning,  either  by  his  decree,  or  by  the  circum- 
stances in  which  they  should  be  placed ;  but  if  they 
sinned,  it  should  be  their  own  free  choice.  As  he 
foresaw  they  would  sin,  he  also  determined  upon  the 
plan  he  would  pursue  in  reference  to  them  as  sinners, 
and  arranged,  in  the  counsels  of  his  own  infinite 
mind,  the  extended  concatenation  of  causes  and 
effects,  so  as  to  make  the  "  wrath  of  man  praise  him," 
and  deduce  the  greatest  possible  good  from  the  best 
possible  system.  Such,  it  is  believed,  is  Arminianism 
— such  is  Methodism — such  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
sermon — and  such  are  the  dictates  of  the  Bible  and 
of  sound  philosophy. 

The  next  question  is.  What  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
reviewer  ?  He  shall  speak  for  himself  On  page  612 
of  the  review,  he  asks  the  question,  "  But  in  what 
sense  are  we  to  understand  the  position  that  he  (God) 
purposes  the  existence  of  sin?"  He  proceeds  to 
answer :  "  Not  necessarily,  in  the  sense  of  his  pre- 
ferring its  existence  in  his  kingdom  to  its  nonexist- 
ence, (fee.  In  affirming  the  doctrine  of  predestination 
we  affirm  no  more  necessarily  than  that  God,  with 
the  knowledge  that  these  beings  would  sin  in  despite 
of  the  best  measures  of  providence  and  government 
he  could  take,  purposed  to  create  them  and  pursue 
those  measures,  not  for  the  sake  of  their  sin,  but  for 
the  good  which  he  nevertheless  saw  it  was  possible 
to  secure  in  his  moral  kingdom.  This  would  be  a 
purpose  with  respect  to  the  existence  of  sin,  a  purpose 
to  permit  its  existence,  rather  than  to  have  no  moral 
system."  Again,  page  613  :  "  Nothing  more  (touching 
free  agency)  is  implied  in  the  purpose  spoken  of  than 


60  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

a  CERTAINTY, /or e^een  of  God,  that  if  he  creates  and 
upholds  that  being,   and    pursues   wise    and    good 
measures  of  providence,  he  (the  being)  will  at  a  given 
time,  fully  choose  in  a  given  way."     In  page  612,  he 
says,  "  God  confers  on  them  (mankind)  in  their  crea- 
tion the  powers  of  free  agency,  and  he  uses  no  influ- 
ence in  his  providence  or  government  to  procure  their 
sin."     Page  614,  "  He  (God)  most  obviously  has  no 
will  opposed  to  his  law,  though  with  a  foresight  of 
their  conduct  he  should  purpose  to  permit  their  sin, 
rather  than  dispense  with  the  existence  of  a  moral 
kingdom."     Bat  it  is  useless  to  multiply  quotations. 
Suffice  it  to  say  that  the   reviewer's  whole  ground 
of  defence  against  the  arguments  of  the  sermon,  on 
the  question  of  predestination,  is  solely  this  Arminian 
explanation  of  the  doctrine  of  predestination.     He 
acknowledges,  nay  boldly  asserts,  in  a  strain  "of  rug- 
ged controversy"  with  his  brethren  who  may  differ 
from  this  view  of  the  subject,  that  there  is  no  other 
explanation  by  which  the  arguments  of  the  sermon 
can  be  avoided — that  is,  as  I  understand  it,  the  only 
way  to    avoid  the  arguments   against   the   doctrine 
of    Calvinian    predestination   is   to   give  it  up,  and 
assume    the    Arminian   sentiment    on    this   subject. 
If  the  reviewer  does  not  mean  this,  he  will  of  course 
explain  himself  fully,  and  point  out  the  precise  dif- 
ference between  his  views  and  those  of  the  Armin- 
ians.  If,  on  this  subject,  the  reviewer  is  an  Arminian, 
he  has  too  much  candour,  I  trust,  not  to  acknowledge 
It  frankly,  and  too  much  moral  courage  to  be  afraid 
of  the  name.     If  he  is  not,  the  cause  of  truth  and 
his   own   consistency  of  character   imperiously   de- 
mand an  explanation.      Until  this   point,   therefore, 
is  decided,  farther  arguments  on  the  merits  of  the 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY.  61 

j[uestion  in  which  we  are  supposed  to  be  at  issue,  are 
useless. 

I  am  not,  however,  quite  ready  to  dismiss  the 
review.  I  stated  at  the  commencement  it  was  diffi- 
cult to  pursue  this  controversy  without  alluding  to 
the  manner  in  which  it  had  been  conducted  on  the 
part  of  our  Calvinistic  brethren  ;  but  that  there  was 
less  ground  for  objection  in  this  article  in  the  Spec- 
tator than  in  most  others.  There  are  some  things  in 
this  article,  however,  that  I  cannot  justify.  I  will 
state  them  frankly,  though  I  trust  in  Christian  friend- 
ship. I  cannot  approve  of  the  reviewer's  use  of  terms : 
though,  to  my  understanding,  he  has  evidently  given 
the  doctrine  of  predestination  not  merely  a  new  dress, 
but  a  new  character^  yet  he  more  than  intimates  that 
it  is  the  old  doctrine  with  only  a  new  method  of  ex- 
planation ;  and  seriously  and  repeatedly  complains 
of  the  author  of  the  sermon  for  "  confounding  i\iQ  fact 
of  God's  foreordaining  the  voluntary  actions  of  men 
with  this  or  any  other  solution  of  that  fact  or  theory 
as  to  the  mode  in  which  it  comes  to  pass."  And  so 
confident  is  the  reviewer  that  he  still  believes  in 
the  fact  of  predestination,  in  the  old  Calvinistic 
sense,  that  in  stating  his  sentiments  on  this  subject 
he  uses  the  same  forms  of  expression  which  Cal- 
vinists  have  used,  when  their  meaning  was  as  distant 
from  his  as  the  two  poles  from  each  other.  He  tells 
us,  for  instance,  that  •'  God  determined  that  the  events 
which  take  place  should  take  place  in  the  very  manner 
in  which  they  do,  and  for  the  very  ends."  Now  if  the 
writer  mean  what  the  words  naturally  imply,  then  he 
believes  that,  in  the  case  of  a  finally  impenitent  sinner, 
God  predetermined  that  all  his  sins  should  take  place 
in  the  manner  they  did,  and  for  the  very  end  that  he 


62  CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY. 

might  be  damned  !  Again  he  tells  us,  "  God,  in  his 
eternal  purpose,  has  predetermined  all  events."  And, 
quoting  from  the  Assembly's  Catechism,  "  God,  from 
all  eternity,  did  freely  and  unchangeably  ordain  what- 
soever comes  to  pass,"  he  tells  us  that  this  expresses 
essentially  the  views  entertained  by  the  orthodox 
Congregationalists  of  New-England,  among  whom, 
I  suppose  of  course,  he  would  include  himself.  Now, 
after  what  I  have  said  of  the  reviewer's  Arminianism, 
I  doubt  not  but  some  of  my  readers  will  be  startled  at 
these  quotations,  and  be  ready  to  accuse  me  of  great 
credulity  in  the  judgment  I  have  formed  of  the 
writer's  sentiments.  I  shall  exculpate  myself,  how- 
ever, by  saying,  in  the  first  place,  that  if  there  is 
any  contradiction  in  the  writer's  sentiments  or  lan- 
guage, it  is  not  my  fault,  but  his  ;  and  if  I  should 
attempt  to  reconcile  them,  perhaps  the  reviewer  would 
not  thank  me  for  my  officiousness.  Besides,  after 
what  has  been  said,  I  feel  safer  in  understanding 
the  reviewer  in  an  Arminian  se?ise,  because  he  and 
some  others  take  it  very  ill  of  me  that  1  have  repre- 
sented them  as  Calvin ists.  But,  in  fairness  to  the 
reviewer,  it  is  presumed  that  he  will  not  consider 
himself  justly  chargeable  with  contradiction.  He  has 
used  these  old  terms,  it  is  true,  and  thus  has  subscribed 
to  the  Calvinistic  creed  as  positively  as  the  stanchest 
Calvinist ;  but  then,  let  it  be  understood,  he  has  ex- 
plai7ied  that  creed,  and  defined  the  terms,  and  protests 
against  being  held  responsible  for  any  other  construc- 
tion than  his  own.  Hence  by  God's  predetermining 
that  sin  should  take  place,  in  the  very  manner,  and 
for  the  very  ends  it  does — by  God's  foreordaining 
whatsoever  comes  to  pass — he  only  means  that  God 
foresaw  that   sin   would   certainly  take   place,   and 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  6d 

predetermined  that  he  would  not  hinder  it,  either  by- 
refraining  from  creating  moral  agents,  or  by  throwing 
a  restraint  upon  them  that  would  destroy  their  free 
agency.  In  short,  that  he  would  submit  to  it  as  an 
evil  unavoidably  incident  to  the  best  possible  system, 
after  doing  all  that  he  wisely  could  to  prevent  it ! 
This  is  foreordaining  sin  ! !  This  is  fredetermin- 
ifig  that  it  should  he !  !  !  I  cannot  but  express  my 
deepest  regret  that  a  gentleman  of  the  reviewer's 
standing  and  learning  should  lend  his  aid  and  give 
his  sanction  to  such  a  perversion  of  language — to 
such  a  confusion  of  tongues.  We  do  not  complain 
of  the  doctrine  contained  in  the  explanation  ;  but  we 
protest,  in  the  name  of  all  that  is  pure  in  language, 
in  the  name  of  all  that  is  important  in  the  sentiments 
conveyed  by  language,  against  such  an  abuse  of 
terms.  Alas  for  us  !  When  will  the  watchmen  see 
eye  to  eye  I  when  will  the  church  be  at  peace  !  while 
our  spiritual  guides,  our  doctors  in  divinity,  pursue 
this  course?  By  what  authority  will  the  reviewer 
support  this  definition  ?  Do  the  words  predestinate, 
or  foreordain,  or  decree,  mean,  in  common  language, 
or  even  in  their  radical  and  critical  definition,  no- 
thing more  than  to  permit — not  absolutely  to  hinder 
— to  submit  to  as  an  unavoidable  but  offensive 
evil  7  The  reviewer  certainly  will  not  pretend  this. 
Much  less  do  they  mean  this  when  used  in  a  magis- 
terial or  authoritative  sense,  to  express  the  mind  and 
will  of  a  superior  or  governor  toward  an  inferior  or  a 
subject.  What  is  the  decree  of  a  king  ?  What  is  the 
ordinance  of  a  senate?  What  is  the  official  deter- 
mination of  a  legislative  body?  Let  common  sense 
and  common  usage  ansv/er  the  question.  Not  a  man 
probably  can  be  found,  from  the  philosopher  to  the 


64  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

peasant,  who  would  say  these  words  would  bear  the 
explanation  of  the  reviewer.  Yet  it  is  in  this  official 
and  authoritative  sense  that  theologians,  and  our 
reviewer  among  them,  use  these  terms.  The  Assem- 
bly's Catechism,  as  quoted  by  himself,  says,  "  God, 
from  all  eternity,  did,  hy  the  most  loise  and  holy 
counsel  of  his  own  will,  freely  and  itnchangeahly 
ordainj''  <fcc.  Now  it  would  be  a  gross  insult  to 
common  sense  to  say  of  such  language  as  this,  in 
the  mouth  of  an  earthly  potentate,  that  the  sovereign 
meant  by  this  nothing  more  than  that  he  permitted 
the  existence  of  certain  unavoidable,  and,  in  them- 
selves,, highly  offensive  evils  in  his  kingdom,  because 
he  could  not  remove  them  without  embarrassing  the 
essential  operations  of  his  government.  There  is 
not,  probably,  a  clearer  case  in  the  whole  range 
of  philology. 

But  the  use  of  these  terms  by  those  who  believe  as 
I  understand  the  reviewer  to  believe,  is  the  more  un- 
justifiable, because  they  are  used  by  most  Calvinistic 
authors  in  a  different  sense.  Wh}?-,  then,  should  the 
reviewer,  believing  as  he  does,  continue  to  use  them 
in  the  symbols  of  his  faith  ?  Different  persons  might 
give  different  answers  to  such  a  question.  For  one, 
I  would  prefer  he  should  answer  it  himself 

I  cannot  approve  of  the  reviewer's  censures  upon 
my  manner  of  treating  the  doctrine  of  predestination. 
He  accuses  me  of  confounding  the  doctrine  itself 
with  modes  of  explanation.  He  says  they  are  per- 
fectly distinct ;  and  though  some  may  have  been  un- 
fortunate in  their  modes  of  explanation,  and  though 
he  acknowledges  my  arguments  bear  against  such, 
yet  the  fact  of  the  doctrine  itself  is  not  thereby 
affected.     His  mode  of  explanation,  for  example,  he 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  65 

thinks  untouched  by  the  arguments  of  the  sermon. 
But  his  mode  of  explanation,  as  we  have  seen,  turns 
the  doctrine  into  Armiiiianism.  And  it  would,  per- 
haps, be  no  difficult  matter  to  show  that  any  expla- 
nation of  the  doctrine,  short  of  doing  it  away,  would 
be  exposed  to  all  the  weight  of  the  arguments  urged 
in  the  sermon.  But  the  sermon  was  never  written  to 
oppose  those  who  hold  to  the  decrees  of  God  in  an 
Arminian  sense.  Why  then  does  the  reviewer  com- 
plain of  the  sermon  ?  Why  does  he  so  "  deeply  regret" 
that  the  author  of  the  sermon  "  should  come  before 
the  public  with  an  attack  on  the  faith  of  a  large  part 
of  the  Christian  community,  conducted  in  a  way  so 
obviously  erroneous  and  unjust  ?"  The  sermon  was 
against  Calvinism,  not  Arminianism.  It  is  true,  the 
reviewer  may  say  the  sermon  alludes,  in  some  parts, 
to  the  Calvinism  of  New-England,  and  therefore  he 
felt  himself  implicated.  But  he  certainly  was  not, 
unless  he  is  a  New-England  Calvinist — unless  he 
believes  that  "  God  foreordains  whatsoever  comes  to 
pass,"  in  the  proper  sense  of  those  terms.  Indeed,  it 
seems  that  Calvinism,  in  its  proper  character,  is  as 
obnoxious  to  the  reviewer  as  to  the  author  of  the 
sermon ;  and  the  former  seems  to  have  taken  this 
opportunity  to  show  the  nakedness  of  the  system, 
and  bring  into  notice  a  better  doctrine.  If  so,  is  it 
safe  that  the  reviewer  should  still  accord  to  them 
their  old  symbols  of  faith?  And  is  it  just,  that  the 
author  of  the  sermon  should  be  held  the  defendant  on 
the  record,  when  the  execution  is  issued  against  Cal- 
vinism itself?  In  answer  to  the  former  question,  I 
would  say  it  is  utterly  unsafe^  and  never  will  be  ap- 
proved of,  I  believe,  by  Arminians.  With  respect  to 
the  latter  question,  if  it  is  safer  to  attack  Calvinism 


66  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

in  this  indirect  way,  I  will  not  object,  though  it  may 
seem  at  present  to  my  disadvantage.  But  I  cannot 
see  that  it  would  be  safer — an  open  bold  front  always 
ends  best.  What  if  it  should  subject  the  reviewer, 
and  the  theological  doctors  in  New-Haven  generally, 
to  the  charge  of  heresy?  Still  they  ought  not  to 
shrink  from  their  responsibilities — they  occupy  a 
commanding  influence  among  the  churches  and  over 
the  candidates  of  their  theological  school,  and  that 
influence  should  be  openly  and  decidedly  directed  to 
discountenance  error.  They  should  remove  it,  root 
and  branch.  Especially  should  they  discard  those 
old  symbols  of  faith  which  are  not  only  in  them- 
selves, in  their  true  and  proper  meanings  a  reflection 
upon  the  clerical  character,  and  a  hlack  spot  upon  an 
otherwise  orthodox  creed,  but  are  also  especially 
obnoxious,  because  they  are  the  very  articles  which 
the  great  body  of  the  Calvinists  have  maintained,  in 
a  sense  widely  different  from  that  of  the  reviewer. 
At  the  head  of  these  stands  Calvin,  the  author  of  the 
system,  in  the  Protestant  Church — Calvin,  v/ho  says, 
"  I  will  not  scruple  to  own  that  the  will  of  God  lays  a 
necessity  on  all  things,  and  that  every  thing  he  wills 
necessarily  comes  to  pass."  "  Adam  fell,  not  only  by 
the  permission,  but  also  by  the  appointtnent  of  God* 
He  not  only  foresaw  that  Adam  would  fall,  but  also 
ordai7ied  that  he  should."  "  The  devil  and  wicked 
men  are  so  held  in  on  every  side,  with  the  hand  of 
God,  that  they  cannot  conceive,  or  contrive,  or  execute 
any  mischief,  any  farther  than  God  himself  doth  not 
permit  only,  but  command — nor  are  they  held  in 
fetters,  but  compelled  also,  as  with  a  bridle,  to  perform 
obedience  to  those  commands."  Calvin,  it  seems, 
was  far  from  thinking  that  appointment  only  meant 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  6? 

permission^  or  that  to  ordain  only  meant  certainty 
foreseen.  In  this  he  was  correct :  in  this  he  has 
been  followed  by  a  host  of  writers  down  to  the  present 
day,  and  copied  in  numerous  ecclesiastical  symbols, 
in  different  parts  of  Christendom ;  and  does  not  the 
reviewer  know  that  these  terms  are  understood  by 
Hopkins  and  Emmons,  and  all  the  Calvinists  of  that 
school,  in  a  sense  widely  different  from  his  explana- 
tion, and  in  a  sense,  too,  much  more  in  accordance 
with  the  proper  meaning  of  the  terms  ?  Does  he  not 
know  that  a  great  majority  of  the  Calvinists  of  the 
United  States,  and  perhaps  in  New-England  even, 
understand  these  terms,  as  indeed  they  ought  to  be 
understood,  when  used  in  reference  to  sin,  as  express- 
ing a  preference  of  sin,  in  that  part  of  the  divine  plan 
where  sin  occurs,  to  holiness  in  its  stead  ?  Indeed,  as 
I  understand  the  reviewer,  from  the  days  of  John 
Calvin  down  to  the  present  hour,  there  is,  on  this 
point,  between  the  great  body  of  Calvinists  and  him- 
self, almost  no  hkeness,  except  in  the  use  of  words. 
Theirs  is  one  doctrine — his  another.  Why,  then, 
does  he  oppose  the  opposer  of  Calvinism,  and  thus 
keep  error  in  countenance  ?  Especially,  why  does  he 
hail  from  that  party,  and  hoist  their  signals^  and 
then,  after  seemifig  to  get  the  victory,  by  espousing 
the  very  cause  of  the  assailed,  encourage  the  Calvin- 
ists to  triumph,  as  if  their  cause  had  been  successful  ? 
Is  this  justice  to  the  author  of  the  sermon  ?  Is  it  the 
best  way  to  promote  truth  ?  But  I  forbear.  The  re- 
viewer's subsequent  explanations  may  remove  these 
difficulties.  At  any  rate,  the  cause  of  truth  will  doubt- 
less advance.  The  appearance  of  this  review  has 
given  additional  strength  to  the  sentiment,  Calvinism 
"  is  waxing  old,  and  is  ready  to  vanish  away."     The 


68  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

dogma  that  "  God  has  predetermined  all  events,  and 
elected  (in  a  Calvinistic  sense)  out  of  our  guilty  world 
all  who  shall  be  heirs  of  salvation,"  withers  at  the 
touch  of  advancing  truth,  and  is  fast  losing  credit  in 
the  Christian  church. 

Since  writing  the  above,  I  have  seen  an  inquiry  of 
a  correspondent  in  one  of  the  Calvinistic  papers,  in 
the  words,  "  Why  do  our  Calvinistic  writers  retain  the 
words  which  seem  so  sadly  to  perplex  our  Arminian 
brethren,  when  it  is  certain  that  we  do  not  attach  the 
signification  to  them  which  they  always  pretend?" 
and  then  instances  in  the  word  "  foreordain."  The 
editor,  in  reply,  gives,  as  a  reason  for  using  these 
words,  that  they  are  Scriptural ;  and  seems  to  deem  it 
necessary  that  they  should  persist  in  this  use  until  we 
submit.  This  reply  of  the  editor  reminded  me  of  a 
remark  of  Mr.  Tyler,  in  his  sermon  already  alluded 
to  :  '•  The  Calvinist  contends  that  God  resolved,  from 
eternity,  to  permit  all  the  sins  and  miseries  which 
were  to  take  place  :  and  this  he  calls,  in  the  language 
of  the  Bible,  foreordination.^^  Now,  not  to  stop  here, 
to  show  that  no  true  Calvinist  would  ever  call  fore- 
ordination  and  permission  the  same  thing,  for  Calvin 
has,  as  we  have  seen,  clearly  distinguished  the  two 
words  from  each  other,  I  beg  the  privilege  of  adding  a 
thought  or  two  on  this  idea  of  Scripture  authority  for 
the  use  of  these  terms.  For  if  it  is  only  because  the 
Scriptures  use  these  words  in  this  sense,  that  they 
persist  in  using  them,  I  think  we  may  easily  settle 
this  question.  Let  it  be  shown  that  the  Scriptures 
use  "  foreordination,"  or  "  predestination,"  in  the  sense 
of  mere  permission — not  absolutely  hindering. 
Again :  let  one  passage  be  shown  in  which  it  is 
said,  God  "  predestinates"  all  things,  or  "  foreordains" 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY.  69 

whatsoever  comes  to  pass.     If  this  cannot  be  done, 
how  futile,  how  more  than  absurd  is  it,  to  talk  about 
using  these  words,  because  the  Scriptures  use  them  ! 
To  use  Scripture  words  out  of  the  Scripture  sense, 
and  then  appeal  to  Scripture  to  sanction  this  use,  is  as 
sad  a  perversion  of  the  Scriptures  as  it  is  of  logic. 
Indeed,  to  give  such  a  meaning  to  the  word  predesti- 
nate, is  at  once  to  take  away  the  principal  scriptures 
quoted  by  the  reviewer,  and  others,  to  prove  Calvin- 
istic  election.     See  Eph.  i,  5 ;  ii,  10;  Rom.  viii,  29. 
Does  predestination  in  these  pass'ages  mean  merely  to 
permit  or  7iot  to  hinder  7  and  do  these  passages  teach 
a  personal  election   to  eternal  hfe?     Is  this    all  the 
Calvinists  mean  by  the  election  of  sovereign  grace^ 
not  of  man,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God  ?     Alas 
for  the  elect !    If  man  does  not  elect  himself,  and  God 
only  predestinates^  that  is,  permits — does  ?iot  hinder 
his  election  ;  who,  we  ask,  will  elect  him?    How  does 
error   destroy   itself!      These    gentlemen   may   take 
which  ground  they  please  ;  they  may  either  acknow- 
ledge that  Bible  predestination  means  an  efficient  pur- 
pose of  God  to  accomplish  an  object,  and  then  meet 
the  sermon  on  the  issue  there  proposed  ;  or  they  may 
interpret  these  words  as  the  reviewer  has,  and  then 
give  up  those   passages   which   they   consider  their 
strong  hold,  in  favour  of  Calvinian  election.     In  either 
case  their  system  must  suffer  serious  loss.     Nothing 
could  be  more  unfortunate,  I  think,  than  this  appeal 
to  the  Bible  to  sanction  such  an  abuse  of  terms.     As 
to  the  word  foreordain,  I  do  not  recollect  that  it  occurs 
in    our    translation.      Jude   4,   has   "  before   of   old 
ordained,"  &c.,  but  it  is  in  the  original  very  different 
from  the  word  rendered  predestinate.     The  allusion 
is  to  characters  that  were  proscribed  for  their  sins, 


70  CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY. 

and  designated  for  deserved  punishment.  The 
original  for  predestinate,  Upoopc^o,  is  used  in  only  ono 
place,  so  far  as  I  can  find,  with  any  direct  reference  to 
a  sinful  act,  Acts  iv,  28.  This  passage  is  quoted  by 
the  reviewer.  But  the  determination  here  spoken  of, 
he  himself  informs  us,  relates  to  "  the  purpose  of  God 
to  make  an  atonement  for  the  sin  of  the  world,  by 
means  of  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ."  Hence  the  pre- 
determination of  God,  in  this  instance,  probably  refers 
to  the  work  of  atonement,  without  including  therein 
any  special  decree  in  respect  to  the  means  of  the  suf- 
fering. Christ  could  have  suffered,  even  unto  death, 
in  the  garden  without  any  human  means.  But  inas- 
much as  these  men  had  the  murderous  purpose,  God 
"  chose  to  leave  Christ  in  their  power,"  &c.,  therefore 
decreed  the  atonement,  but  permitted  the  means. 
This  seems  to  be  the  most  rational  construction.  But 
whatever  Calvinists  may  think  of  this  passage,  the 
Scriptural  use  of  the  word  is  clearly  on  the  side  of  its 
proper  meaning — an  authoritative  ordinafice  that 
the  thing  predestinated  shall  be. 

I  will  avail  myself  of  this  opportunity  to  correct  one 
or  two  errors  of  the  reviewer,  respecting  the  sentiment 
of  the  sermon,  which  had  escaped  my  notice.  He 
says  my  "  view  of  predestination  is  a  determination 
of  God  to  produce  a  given  result  by  his  ow?i  immediate 
and  efficient  energy."  This  is  a  mistake.  I  said 
nothing  about  immediate  energy  ;  this  is  an  essential 
misrepresentation  of  the  sermon.  Again  :  "  On  Dr. 
Fisk's  principle,  it  is  impossible  for  God  to  use  the 
voluntary  agency  of  any  creature,  to  accomplish  any 
valuable  end  in  his  kingdom,  and  yet  leave  that 
creature  accountable  for  his  conduct."  This  is  so 
manifestly  incorrect  and  unjust,  that  I  am  sure  I  need 


CALVIMSTIC    CONTROVERSY.  71 

only  call  the  attention  of  the  reviewer  to  it  a  second 
time  to  secure  a  correction  from  himself. 


NUMBER  II. 

A    PROPOSITION    TO    CALVINISTS. 

[The  communication  below  contains  a  proposition 
from  Dr.  W.  Fisk,  which,  however  much  we  dislike 
theological  controversies,  we  believe  is  appropriate 
and  interesting  at  this  time.  Such  a  discussion, 
under  such  arrangements,  will  give  the  merits  of  the 
controversy  to  both  sides ;  and  will,  at  least,  convince 
all  of  one  truth — that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
seeks  not  concealment  from  the  world  or  her  members, 
as  charged  by  her  adversaries.  But  it  will  develope 
a  still  more  important  truth,  and  that  is,  what  are  the 
settled  and  definite  opinions  of  the  old  or  the  new 
school  in  the  Calvinistic  churches.  It  is  known  to 
all  the  world,  that  there  is  great  difficulty  in  ascer- 
taining what  are  the  theological  opinions  of  those 
ancient  churches  of  the  land.  They  seem  to  be  as 
far  apart  from  each  other  as  they  are  from  Armini- 
anism ;  and  their  replies  and  rejoinders  to  each  other 
are  as  severe  as  if  directed  against  us.  The  discus- 
sion must  be  interesting  and  profitable,  carried  on  by 
two  such  persons  as  Dr.  Fisk  and  his  opponent,  and 
under  the  steady  supervision,  as  to  temper  and  manner, 
of  third  parties  as  proposed. — Eds.] 

I  have  just  received  a  pamphlet  of  about  forty-eight 
pages,  containing  a  series  of  letters,  in  answer  to  my 
sermon  on  predestination  and  election.  These  letters 
are  written  by  the  Rev.  David  Metcalf,  of  Lebanon, 


72  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVEPwSY. 

Connecticut,  and  purport  to  be  an  answer,  not  only  to 
the  doctrinal  part  of  the  sermon,  but  to  the  "  charges," 
as  the  writer  is  pleased  to  call  them,  contained  in  the 
sermon,  and  published  afterward  in  a  specific  form, 
first  in  the  Connecticut  Observer,  and  then  in  the 
Christian  Advocate  and  Journal. 

It  will  be  recollected  by  your  readers,  that  I  pledged 
myself  to  vindicate  my  statements  against  any  respon- 
sible person,  who,  with  his  own  proper  signature, 
would  come  forward  and  deny  them  :  or  if  I  failed  to 
support  them,  I  would  retract  what  I  had  written. 
This  pledge  Mr.  Metcalf  calls  upon  me  to  redeem  ;  not 
indeed  by  bringmg  forward  my  proofs,  or  by  making 
a  reply  ;  but,  having  thrown  in.  his  plea,  he  supposes 
that  the  cause  is  decided,  and  has  himself  made  up  the 
judgment,  and  issued  the  execution,  and  forthwith 
comes  forward,  and  claims  his  damage.  His  words 
are  :  "  Of  the  author  of  the  sermon  we  claim  a  public 
acknowledgment  of  his  errors,  and  make  justice  and 
equity  the  ground  of  our  claim."  Again,  "If  Dr. 
Fisk  makes  no  public  retraction  from  the  ground  taken 
in  his  sermon — if  after  he  shall  receive  these  letters,  [!  !] 
remembering  also  what  is  said  in  the  Christian  Spec- 
tator's review  of  his  sermon,  he  shall  allow  another 
copy  of  it  to  be  printed,  I  think  he  will  find  it  difficult 
to  convince  any  intelligent,  candid  man  that  he  is  not 
guilty  of  breaking  the  ninth  commandment,"  &c. 
The  intelligent  reader,  who  has  studied  human  nature, 
will  know  how  to  make  suitable  allowances  for  the 
dogmatical  and  premature  decisions  and  high  claims 
contained  in  the  foregoing  extracts.  It  is  not  an 
uncommon  thing,  that  a  zealous  advocate  succeeds  in 
convincing  himself  of  the  truth  of  his  cause ;  but 
utterly  fails  with  respect  to  all  others.     I  do  not  say 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY.  78 

that  this  writer  will  not  gain  his  argument;  but  it 
requires  more  "  foreknowledge"  than  I  am  disposed  to 
accord  to  him,  to  affirm  this  as  a  "  certainty."  I 
demur  against  this  hasty  manner  of  making  up  the 
judgment.  I  wish  to  be  heard  in  defence  of  my 
statements,  and  have  objections  also  to  bring  against 
his  statements,  and  supposed  proofs  and  arguments. 

In  the  first  place,  I  object  to  him,  that  he  has  not 
come  out  and  joined  issue  specifically  and  directly  on 
any  one  of  my  "  charges,"  but  talks,  for  most  part,  in 
general  terms,  about  the  unfairness,  injustice,  and  mis- 
representations of  the  sermon.  This  circumstance 
would,  of  itself,  free  me  from  any  obligation  to  notice 
these  letters,  on  the  ground  of  my  pledge  in  the  Ob- 
server. But  yet,  as  I  feel  the  most  perfect  readiness 
to  discuss  this  subject,  and  as  I  hope  the  cause  of 
righteousness  may  be  served  thereby,  I  will  willingly 
proceed  in  this  controversy,  both  as  to  doctrine  and 
policy,  provided  we  can  secure  some  suitable  public 
medium  through  which  to  prosecute  the  discussion. 
And  on  this  point  Mr.  M.  complains  bitterly  of  the  for- 
mer editors  of  the  Advocate  and  Journal — for  he  had 
applied,  it  seems,  for  the  privilege  of  having  his  letters 
inserted  in  that  paper,  and  was  refused,  on  the  ground 
that  "  the  sermon  was  not  published  in  the  Advocate, 
and  therefore  justice  did  not  require  that  its  answer 
should  be."  Now,  since  these  letters  are  professedly 
an  answer  to  the  whole  sermon^  the  editors,  I  think, 
were  perfectly  consistent  with  their  former  statements 
in  refusing  to  publish  them.  If  Mr.  M.  had  confined 
himself  to  the  charges  in  the  Observer,  the  editors 
would  undoubtedly  have  given  the  subject  a  place  in. 
the  columns  of  the  Advocate  :  as  it  was,  however,  I 
think  the  charge  of  injustice  and  unfairness  made 

4 


74  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

against  the  editors  by  Mr.  M.  is  entirely  gratuitous  and 
mijustijiahle.  If  it  were  expected  to  produce  an  effect 
on  the  pubUc,  by  such  a  complaint,  I  think  such  an 
expectation  will  be  disappointed  in  all  places  where 
the  subject  is  understood.  And  that  this  was  the  ex- 
pectation appears  evident  from  another  charge  against 
Methodist  preachers,  in  the  following  words: — "  It  is 
supposed  to  be  the  common  sentiment,  if  not  '  the 
common  talk  in  our  land,'  that  the  Methodist  preach- 
ers have  a  strong  aversion  against  their  hearers '  read- 
ing our  writings.  The  reason  of  this,  in  part,  is  sup- 
posed to  be,  that  they  choose  to  have  their  people  receive 
all  their  knowledge  of  our  creed  from  their  statements 
of  it,  instead  of  ours;  lest  they  should  be  convinced, 
by  our  arguments,  of  the  truth  of  our  behef."  Now 
this  charge  we  wholly  and  positively  deny,  and  chal- 
lenge the  writer  for  the  proofs  of  what  we  know  to  be 
not  only  an  ungenerous,  but  an  unjust  allegation. 
Nothing  can  be  farther  from  the  whole  genius  of  r?^e- 
thodism  than  this.  Does  not  the  reverend  gentleman 
know  that  a  great  portion  of  our  members  in  New- 
England  are  those  who  were  once  members  of  Cal- 
vinistic  congregations?  Does  he  not  know  that  they 
were  trained  up  in  these  doctrines  from  their  infancy, 
and  have  heard  them  explained  and  defended  from 
their  earliest  recollections  ?  Does  he  not  know  that 
Methodism  has  made  its  way  against  the  impressions 
of  the  nursery,  the  catechetical  instruction  of  the 
priest  and  the  schoolmaster — the  influence  of  the 
pulpit  and  the  press,  and  in  maturer  age  against  the 
still  stronger  influence  of  academies  and  colleges? 
Does  he  not  know,  also,  that  all  this  has  been  done  in 
thiis  generation?  And  shall  we  now  be  told  that 
Methodists  examine   but   one  side  of  the  question? 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY.  t5 

How  astonishing  such  a  charge  from  a  man  who  can 
make  any  pretension  to  a  knowledge  of  ecclesiastical 
matters  in  our  country  !  Does  not  this  writer  know, 
also,  that  the  editors  of  the  Advocate,  and  others, 
have  called  loudly,  and  almost  continually,  for  infor- 
mation upon  this  subject,  that  we  might  know  what 
the  Calvinistic  standards  are,  and  ascertain  what  Cal- 
vinism is  ?  and  shall  we  now  be  told  that  Methodists 
are  ignorant  of  the  Calvinistic  faith,  and,  what  is 
worse,  the  preachers  strive  to  keep  them  in  ignorancej, 
and  that  with  the  base  purpose  of  keeping  them  from 
a  conviction  of  the  truth  !  We  say,  if  Calvinism  is 
essentially  what  it  was  from  five  to  thirty  years  ago, 
we  know  its  character  as  well  as  we  ever  can  know 
it.  If  we  do  not  understand  it  now,  it  is  either  be- 
cause vve  have  not  natural  ability  to  understand  it, 
(and  therefore,  Calvinism  itself  being  judge,  we  are 
not  criminal,)  or  it  is  because  the  teachers  of  Cal- 
vinism have  not  had  natiiral  ahility  io  mt^ke  it  plain. 
But  if  Calvinism  is  not  essentially  what  it  was,  we 
ask  what  it  now  is  ?  If  it  is  changed  in  the  hands 
of  its  supporters,  how  much  has  it  changed  ?  Is  it 
Calvinism  still,  or  has  it  lost  its  identity?  In  what 
does  the  identity  of  Calvinism  consist  ?  Shall  we 
take  the  Rev.  Mr.  Metcalf's  answer  to  these  ques- 
tions? Shall  we  take  the  Christian  Spectators 
answers  ?  Mr.  Metcalf  appears  fully  to  agree  with 
the  Spectator,  for  he  makes  frequent  reference  to  it, 
with  great  apparent  approbation.  And  yet  two  num- 
bers of  this  periodical  have  been  issued  since  my  reply 
to  the  review  of  my  sermon  in  that  work,  in  which 
reply  I  stated  my  understanding  of  the  reviewer's 
doctrine  of  predestination,  and  requested  to  be  inform- 
ed if  I  were  incorrect ;  and  neither  my  reply  nor  my 


76  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

request  has  been  noticed.  And  yet,  let  it  be  under- 
stood that,  in  the  last  number,  there  is  a  very  laboured 
article,  to  show  that  Dr.  Taylor  does  not  differ  essen- 
tially from  the  orthodox  Calvinistic  faith  heretofore 
received. 

It  is  also  known  that,  though  Drs.  Woods,  Griffin, 
Tyler,  Green,  and  various  others,  come  out  and 
charge  a  portion  of  their  brethren  with  a  serious 
and  dangerous  dereliction  from  the  Calvinistic  faith, 
yet  the  accused,  in  their  turn,  strenuously  maintain 
that  they  preserve  the  old  landmarks  unremoved, 
and  the  essential  principles  of  Calvinism  unimpaired  ; 
and  that  it  is  a  calumnious  charge  to  say  they  have 
departed  from  the  faith  of  the  party. 

How  shall  we  judge  in  this  matter  ?  If  we  think, 
from  our  understanding  of  their  writings,  that  some 
of  them  have  changed  their  views,  and  we  ask  them 
if  they  have,  they  are  silent.  If  their  brethren  charge 
them  with  changing,  they  deny  it ;  and,  standing  up 
before  the  world  and  before  the  churches,  and  before 
their  God,  pronounce  deliberately  and  emphatically 
the  old  symbols  of  faith,  as  a  test  oath  to  prove  their 
orthodoxy.  Should  we  doubt  their  repeated  asseve- 
rations, Mr.  Metcalf,  or  somebody  else,  might  write 
another  pamphlet  to  screw  us  into  repentance  and 
confession,  for  bearing  false  witness  against  our 
neighbour.  But  if  we  hold  them  to  the  old  doctrine, 
which  we  have  had  a  good  opportunity  of  learning 
from  our  youth  up,  we  are  accused  of  misrepresenta- 
tion, and  of  bearing  false  witness.  None  but  the 
advocates  of  the  New-Haven  divinity  have,  to  my 
knowledge,  taken  a  public  stand  against  my  sermon , 
and  they  oppose  it  because  they  say  it  is  a  misrepre- 
sentation  of  their  doctrine. 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  77 

This,  therefore,  seems  to  us  to  be  the  state  of  the 
case  with  respect  to  these  gentlemen : — We  make  a 
representation  of  Calvinism  as  we  have  found  it,  and 
have  heretofore  understood  it — they  object,  because 
this  is  not  their  belief,  and  therefore  we  break  the 
ninth  commandment !  Their  own  brethren  charo-e 
them  with  a  departure  from  the  old  doctrines,  and 
they  deny  it !  and  charge  them  in  turn  with  bearing 
false  witness  !  In  the  midst  of  our  perplexity  on  this 
subject,  while  we  are  looking  every  way  for  light,  up 
comes  Mr.  Metcalf,  and  tells  us  we  are  unwilling  our 
people  should  know  what  Calvinists  believe  !  Is  this 
generous  or  just  ?  We  repel  the  charge,  and  demand 
proof  And  in  the  meantime,  as  a  farther  proof  that 
the  charge  is  unfounded,  I  will,  Messrs.  Editors,  with 
your  consent  and  approbation,  make  a  proposition  to 
Mr.  Metcalf  It  is  certainly  desirable  that  both  Cal- 
vinists and  Methodists  should  hear  both  sides.  Mr. 
Metcalf  seems  very  desirous  to  enlighten  the  Method- 
ists. This  is  very  well.  But  we  also  wish  to  enlis^hten 
the  Calvinists.  To  accomplish  this,  the  discussion  on 
both  sides  should  be  put  into  the  hands  of  the  people 
on  both  sides.  If,  then,  some  reputable  and  exten 
sively  circulated  Calvinistic  periodical  will  publish 
my  sermon,  and  the  discussion  which  has  arisen,  or 
may  arise  out  of  it,  on  both  sides,  the  Christian  Advo- 
cate and  Journal  will  publish  Mr.  Metcalf's  letters 
and  the  discussions  which  shall  follow;  provided, 
always,  that  it  shall  be  submitted  to  the  respective 
editors,  whether  the  pieces  are  written  in  respectful 
and  becoming  style  and  language  ;  and  provided,  also, 
that  the  Calvinistic  editor  shall,  by  consenting  to  this 
arrangement,  be  considered  as  thereby  acknowledg- 
ing that  Mr.  Metcalf  is  a  suitable  man  to  manage  the 


78  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

controversy  in  behalf  of  the  Calvinists,  and  that  you, 
Messrs.  Editors,  by  consenting  to  the  arrangement, 
will  thereby  consent  that  you  are  willing  to  trust  the 
controversy  in  my  hands,  to  be  managed  in  behalf  of 
the  Methodists.  To  give  an  opportunity  for  the  Cal- 
vinistic  periodical  to  be  prepared,  I  shall  wait  a 
reasonable  time,  when,  if  the  offer  is  not  complied 
with,  I  shall  want  the  privilege,  perhaps,  of  occupy- 
ing the  columns  of  the  Advocate,  by  the  insertion  of  a 
few  numbers  touching  the  present  Calvinistic  con- 
troversy, both  as  relates  to  their  own  differences,  and 
also  as  relates  to  the  general  question  between  them 
and  us. 


NUMBER  III. 

INDEFINITENESS    OF    CALVINISM. 

The  readers  of  the  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal 
will  recollect  the  proposition  made  to  the  Rev.  David 
Metcalf,  in  the  Sth  No.  of  the  present  volume,  on  the 
subject- of  his  review  of  my  sermon.  This  proposition 
has  not  been  complied  with  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Met- 
calf, and,  according  to  the  following  extract  from 
the  New- York  Evangelist,  no  compliance  can  be 
expected  :^— 

"  We  have  seen,"  says  the  editor  of  the  Evangelist, 
"  in  the  Advocate,  since  Mr.  Metcalf 's  work  was  pub- 
lished, a  letter  from  Dr.  Fisk,  in  which  he  shows  his 
desire  that  the  discussion  shall  still  go  forward. 
There  is  one  condition  he  exacts,  however,  which  we 
think  impracticable.  It  is  that  some  person  should 
be  designated,  by  a  sort  of  common  suffrage,  as  the 
champion  of  Calvinism.    Now  the  truth  is,  Calvinists, 


CALVIXir-TIC    CONTROVERSY.  79 

as  a  class,  are  rather  remarkable  for  thinking  for 
themselves ;  and,  of  course,  while  there  are  great  prin- 
ciples on  which,  as  a  class,  they  all  agree,  there  are 
many  things  which  will  be  held  or  stated  differently, 
by  different  minds.  Consequently  we  can,  each  of 
us,  defend  ourselves,  and  defend  Calvinists  as  a  class  ; 
notwithstanding,  each  one  may  think  his  fellow  holds 
some  errors,  and  therefore,  in  his  contest  with  Cal- 
vinism, Dr.  Fisk  must  assume  to  himself  the  respon- 
sibility of  selecting  those  doctrinal  points  and  modes 
of  statement  which  distinguish  Calvinists  as  a  class. 
And  when  he  has  found  these  principles,  we  hope  he 
will  either  confute  or  embrace  them." 

I  have  copied  the  above  for  the  farther  notice  of  the 
public,  not  only  as  a  remarkable  paragraph  in  itself, 
but  also  as  having  an  important  bearing  on  the  pre- 
sent controversy.  There  are  several  things  in  it 
worthy  of  special  notice. 

In  the  first  place  we  see,  if  other  editors  think  with 
this  one,  and  that  they  do  we  are  left  to  infer  from 
their  not  offering  their  periodicals  for  the  controversy, 
there  is  no  hope  that  my  proposition  will  be  accepted. 
We  then  have  the  reason — because  there  is  one  im- 
practicable condition.  But  why  impracticable  ?  The 
editor  tells  us,  "  Dr.  Fisk  exacts  that  some  person 
should  be  designated  by  a  sort  of  common  suffrage  to 
be  the  champion  of  Calvinism."  I  cannot  believe  the 
editor  means  to  misrepresent  me ;  and  yet  he  has 
done  it.  My  words  are,  "  Provided  that  the  Calvin- 
istic  editor  shall,  by  consenting  to  this  arrangement, 
be  considered  as  thereby  acknowledging  that  Mr. 
Metcalf  is  a  suitable  man  to  manage  the  controversy 
on  the  part  of  the  Calvinists."  Here  is  nothing  said 
about  a  "  sort  of  common  suffrage."     In  case  of  com- 


80  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

pliance  by  Mr.  Leavitt,  or  any  other  editor,  the  only 
vote  to  be  polled  and  counted  would  be  his  own.  Not 
a  very  extensive  suffrage  this !  And  if  Mr.  Leavitt 
thinks  the  condition  impracticable,  it  must  be  owing 
to  moral  inability  existing  in  his  own  mind,  growing 
out  of  the  belief  that  Mr.  Metcalf  is  not  a  suitable  per- 
son  to  manage  this  controversy.  Hence  it  is  well  I 
took  the  precaution  I  did ;  for  Mr.  Metcalf  is  a  stran- 
ger to  me,  and  I  do  not  wish  to  engage  in  a  contro- 
versy on  this  subject  with  any  man  who  is  not,  by  his 
class,  considered  responsible.  Perhaps  Mr.  Leavitt 
knows  of  some  one  who  would  be  suitable,  in  his  judg- 
ment, and  who  would  accept  of  the  offer ;  or  perhaps 
he  himself  would  be  willing  to  engage  in  the  discus- 
sion. I  do  not  wish  to  confine  it  to  Mr.  Metcalf;  nor 
do  I  wish  to  be  considered  in  the  light  of  a  general 
challenger  who  is  seeking  an  adventure.  The  subject 
is  an  important  one,  and  I  am  willing  to  discuss  it 
with  any  candid,  responsible  man.  We  were  most 
unjustly,  as  I  believed,  accused  of  keeping  our  people 
in  ignorance  of  Calvinism,  and  of  preventing  them 
from  reading  on  the  other  side,  for  the  base  purpose  of 
preventing  them  from  being  convinced  of  the  truth. 
To  render  the  subject  fair  and  equal,  therefore,  and  to 
wipe  off"  this  aspersion,  I  made  the  proposal ;  and,  if 
Mr.  Metcalf  is  not  a  suitable  man,  let  some  other  be 
found. 

But  we  are  informed  farther  in  this  paragraph,  that 
one  great  difficulty  in  complying  with  my  condition 
is,  that  "Calvinists,  as  a  class,  are  remarkable  for 
thinking  for  themselves,"  (fee.  If  the  editor  designs  to 
say,  as  the  natural  construction  would  imply,  that  the 
whole  class  are  remarkable,  in  their  character  as  Cal- 
vinists,  for  thinking   and  believing    differently   and 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY.  81 

independently  of  each  other,  then  his  proposition  is  a 
contradiction.  They,  as  a  class,  are  remarkable  for 
not  being-  a  class  at  all,  having  no  properties  or 
qualities  in  common  !  His  argument  also  would 
require  this  construction,  because  he  is  showing  why 
no  one  could  be  the  proper  champion  of  the  class,  for 
the  reason  that,  as  a  class,  they  did  not  think  alike. 
If  Calvinism  be  a  general  term,  it  includes,  in  its 
extension,  all  those  individuals  or  subclasses  of  indi- 
viduals, and  only  those,  who  hold  certain  doctrines  in 
common  ;  and  it  embraces  all  those  doctrines,  and  only 
those,  that  are  held  in  common  by  the  class.  If,  there- 
fore, there  is  any  such  class,  then  most  certainly  they 
think  alike  in  all  those  things  that  constitute  them  a 
class ;  and,  by  consequence,  any  one  of  the  number, 
otherwise  competent,  would  be  qualified  to  represent 
and  defend  the  class  as  such,  however  much  he  might 
differ  from  many  of  "his  fellows"  in  other  things. 
If,  therefore,  there  is  any  force  in  the  argument  that 
it  is  impracticable  for  any  one  of  the  number  bearing 
the  name,  to  become  the  champion  of  the  class  as 
such,  because  they  differ  so  among  themselves,  it  must 
arise  from  the  fact  that  there  are  no  "great  principles" 
held  in  common  among  them,  and,  of  course,  there  is 
no  class.  All  the  writer  says  afterward,  therefore, 
about  "  great  principles  in  which  they  all  agree,"  is 
mere  verbiage,  signifying  nothing.  For  if  we  give  it 
any  meaning,  it  would  be  a  contradiction  of  what  he 
had  stated  before,  and  a  complete  nullification  of  the 
only  argument  adduced  as  a  reason  for  not  complying 
with  my  proposal.  There  is  another  reason  why  I 
think  the  above  a  fair  view  of  the  subject.  In  the 
same  paragraph  it  is  said,  "  Therefore,  in  his  contest 
with  Calvinism.  Dr.  Fisk  must  assume  to  himself  the 

4* 


88  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

responsibility  of  selecting  those  doctrinal  facts  and 
modes  of  statement  which  distinguish  Calvmists  as  a 
class."  This  is  more  unreasonable  than  the  requisi- 
tion  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  when  he  commanded  the 
wise  men  to  make  known  the  dream.^  as  well  as  the 
interpretation.  Would  an  intelligent  and  ingenuous 
man,  such  as  we  have  a  right  to  expect  a  religious 
editor  to  be,  give  such  an  answer,  under  such  circum- 
stances, if  he  could  have  told  us  what  Calvinism  is  ? 
We  have  been  accused,  not  by  Mr.  Metcalf  only,  but 
by  Calvinists  of  the  old  school,  and  the  new  school, 
and  all  the  schools^  that  we  misrepresent  them,  that 
our  preachers  make  it  their  business  to  misrepresent 
them — that  my  sermon  was  a  most  scandalous  misre- 
presentation, and  that  we  studied  to  keep  our  people 
ignorant  of  what  Calvinism  is.  When  this  is  replied 
to,  by  entreating  and  conjuring  those  who  bear  the 
name  of  Calvinism  to  tell  us  what  it  is  ;  and  when  we 
offer  to  discuss  the  subject,  in  their  own  periodicals, 
and  give  them  an  opportunity  to  discuss  it  in  ours, 
and  to  inform  our  people,  in  their  own  way,  on  this 
doctrine — a  deathlike  silence  on  the  subject  reigns 
throughout  the  whole  corps  editorial :  until  at  length 
the  Evangelist  speaks, — We  cannot  comply  ;  we  each 
and  all,  as  a  class,  are  so  remarkable  for  thinking  for 
ourselves,  it  is  impracticable  for  any  one  to  state  and 
defend  those  doctrinal  facts  which  distinguish  lis  as 
a  class,  and  therefore  Dr.  Fisk  must  assume  to  him- 
self the  responsibility  of  selecting  them  !  !  If  Cal- 
vinists cannot  agree  in  their  own  system,  and  cannot 
trust  any  of  their  fraternity  to  state  and  defend  it  in 
behalf  of  the  class,  why  do  they  accuse  us  of  wilful 
misrepresentations,  in  stating  their  system  ?  Why, 
in  short,  do  they  not  begin  to  doubt  whether,  as  a  class, 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  83 

they  have  any  system  ?  It  is  time  for  those  who  bear 
the  name  to  know,  and  for  the  pubhc  to  be  distinctly 
informed,  whether  there  is  any  thing  real  repre- 
sented by  the  term  Calvinism  ?  If  there  is,  then, 
whether  the  term  is  a  common  or  a  proper  noun? 
If  it  is  a  common  noun,  or  a  general  name,  then, 
what  are  the  qualities,  the  properties,  or  doctrines 
designated  by  it  ?  If  no  one  can  tell — if  those  who 
"  write  about  it,  and  about  it,"  week  after  week,  think 
it  impracticable  to  define  or  describe  those  doctrines 
for  the  class,  because  they  think  so  differently,  of 
course  it  follows,  if  the  name  is  retained,  it  is  not  a 
general,  but  a  proper  name^  and  belongs  only  to  indi- 
viduals. And  though  it  has  been  assumed  by  many 
individuals,  yet  it  has  in  each  case  an  individual 
definition,  which  by  no  means  enters  into  the 
definition  of  the  term,  as  assumed  by  any  other 
individual.  And  therefore  it  is  as  inconsistent  to  talk 
about  the  class  of  Calvinists  as  it  is  to  talk  about  the 
class  of  Johns  or  Joshuas,  and  as  absurd  to  infer  that 
two  men  are  in  any  of  their  real  characteristics  alike, 
because  each  is  called  Calvinist^  as  to  argue  that  the 
editor  of  the  Evangelist  and  Joshua,  the  son  of  Nun, 
belonged  to  the  same  class,  because  both  are  called 
Joshua.  And  this  appears  to  me  to  be  very  nearly  the 
true  state  of  the  case.  Calvinism,  as  designating  a 
class,  has  always  been  rather  vague  and  unsettled  in 
its  definition,  from  the  days  of  John  Calvin  himself. 
And  this  was  one  of  the  offensive  objections  brought 
against  it  in  my  sermon — an  objection,  however,  that 
has  been  abundantly  confirmed  by  recent  events.  As 
I  wrote  and  published  of  another  doctrine  some  years 
since,  so  I  may  say  of  Calvinism  now.  It  is  a  proteus 
that  changes  its  shape  before  one  can  describe  it — an 


d4  tALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

tgnis  fatuus,  that  changes  its  place  before  one  can  get 
his  hand  on  it.  And  here  I  will  stop  to  say,  it  will 
avail  nothing  for  any  one  to  take  offence  at  this  state- 
ment. It  is  not  because  I  dislike  men  who  are  called 
Calvinists,  that  I  thus  speak.  I  know  many  of  them 
personally,  and  esteem  them  highly,  but  of  their 
doctrine,  and  their  system,  and  their  name,  I  must 
speak  freely.  And  the  best  refutation  they  can  give, 
is  to  come  out,  if  they  can,  and  define  and  explain 
their  system.  I  care  not  what  shape  it  is  presented 
in ;  I  am  willing  to  meet  it.  If  it  puts  on  an  Arminian 
character  and  dress,  like  the  review  in  the  Christian 
Spectator,  I  will  only  ask  the  privilege  of  baptizing  it 
anew,  and  giving  it  a  legitimate  name.  But  as  there 
seems  now  little  hope  of  being  permitted  to  meet  it  in 
the  manner  proposed,  it  only  remains  that  I  proceed, 
according  to  promise,  to  "  occupy  the  columns  of  the 
Advocate  with  a  few  numbers,  touching  the  present 
Calvinistic  controversy,  both  as  relates  to  their  own 
differences,  and  as  relates  to  the  general  question 
between  them  and  us." 

I  cannot  but  think  this  an  important  moment  to  look 
into  this  subject.  The  signs  of  the  times  indicate  that 
the  spirit  of  inquiry  is  abroad,  and  the  old  platforms 
are  shaken.  In  this  breaking  up  of  erroneous  sys- 
tems, there  is  danger  of  extremes  and  extravagances, 
more  to  be  dreaded,  perhaps,  than  the  old  errors  them- 
selves. Hence,  the  necessity  for  every  man  who  has 
the  truth  to  be  on  his  guard  against  the  currents,  new 
and  unprovided  for,  that  may  otherwise  drive  him  from 
his  safe  moorings  :  and  hence  the  necessity,  also,  that 
he  who  has  weighed  anchor,  and  is  afloat  upon  the 
unexplored  sea  of  philosophic  speculation,  should  be 
aware  of  the  rocks  and  the  quicksands  on  the  opposite 


CALVINI9TIC    CONTROVERSY.  85 

shore.  An  abler  hand  than  mine  is  certainly  needed 
on  this  occasion ;  such  a  one  I  hope  may  be  found. 
But  in  the  meantime  I  will,  as  I  am  able,  say  ^few 
things^  with  the  sincere  prayer  that  I  and  my  readers 
may  be  led  into  all  truth. 


NUMBER  IV. 

SKETCH     OF     THE     PAST     CHANGES     AND     PRESENT 
STATE    OF    CALVINISM    IN    THIS    COUNTRY. 

In  he  former  number  it  was  seen  that  the  indefi- 
niteness  and  mutability  of  the  Calvinistic  system  had 
thrown  a  kind  of  irresponsibiUty  around  it,  which 
renders  this  controversy,  in  many  respects,  extremely 
unsatisfactory.     This  might,  at  first,  lead  to  the  con- 
clusion that  farther  discussion  would  be  useless.     On 
farther   thought,   however,  it  may  appear   that  this 
very  circumstance  will  render  the  controversy  both 
easier  and  more  promising.     This  diversity  of  opinions 
has  produced  serious  discussion  among  the  predesti- 
narians  themselves,  and  has  thrown  the  system  open 
to  public  view,  and  driven  its  advocates  to  a  clearer 
statement  of  their  respective  opinions.     The  efferves- 
cence, in  short,  growing  out  of  this  excitement,  has 
led  to  a  more  distinct  analysis  of  the  system,  and,  of 
course,  to  a  clearer  discovery  of  its  constituent  parts. 
Their  arguments  against  each  other,  and  the  logical 
consequences  which  they  urge  against  each  other's 
views,  are,  in  many  cases,  precisely  the  same  that  we 
should  advance,  and  have  often  urged,  in  opposition 
to   predestination.     Much  of  the  work,  therefore,  is 
prepared  for  us,  and  brought  forward  in  a  way  to  pro- 
duce an  effect  among  Calvinists  themselves,  where  we 
could  not  be  heard. 


86  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

To  understand  this  subject,  however,  fully,  and  to 
follow  out  this  discussion  advantageously,  it  will  be 
necessary  to  glance  at  the  different  changes  and  mo- 
difications of  the  Calvinistic  system;  and  to  take  a 
brief  survey  of  the  present  state  of  the  parties. 

The  religious  faith  of  our  puritanical  fathers  is  too 
well  known  to  need  a  delineation  here.  This  faith 
was  at  an  early  day  defined  and  formally  recognised, 
in  the  Cambridge  and  Say  brook  Platforms.  The  first 
refinement  (improvement  it  can  hardly  be  called)  upon 
this  ancient  faith  was  the  metaphysical  theory  of  Dr. 
Hopkins.  The  leading  dogmas  of  this  theory  were, 
that  God  was  the  efficiefit  cause  of  all  moral  action, 
holy  and  unholy  ;  and  that  holiness  consisted  in  dis- 
interested benevolence.  Insomuch,  that  the  ansv^er 
to  the  question,  "  Are  you  willing  to  be  damned  ?"  was 
deemed  a  very  good  criterion  by  which  to  judge  of  a 
religious  experience.  While  the  doctrine  of  predesti- 
nation was  in  this  manner  ^oi^z^'  to  ^eec?,  and  bearing 
its  legitimate  fruits,  in  one  direction,  it  received  a  re- 
markably plausible  modification  in  another.  The 
atonement,  which  was  formerly  limited  to  the  elect, 
was  now  extended  to  all ;  and  the  invitations  of  the 
gospel,  instead  of  being  restrained,  as  before,  to  the 
world  of  the  elect,  were  extended  to  the  world  of  man- 
kind. But,  as  it  would  be  useless  to  hold  out  invita- 
tions to  those  who  could  not  accept  of  them,  another 
refinement  was  introduced,  and  man  was  found  to 
possess  a  natural  ability  to  receive  salvation,  although 
he  laboured  under  an  invincible  moral  inahility^  which 
would  for  ever  keep  him  from  Christ  until  drawn  by 
irresistible  grace.  This  discovery  led  to  other  refine- 
ments in  language,  so  that  a  kind  of  technical  nomen- 
clature was  formed,  out  of  words  in  popular  use,  which 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  87 

words,  by  an  accompanying  glossary,  were  so  defined 
as  to  correspond  with  the  Calvinistic  system.  Thus, 
"  You  can  repent  if  you  will,"  meaning,  according  to 
the  technical  definition,  "  You  can  repent  when  God 
makes  you  willing,"  and  so  of  the  rest. 

This  theory,  sustained  as  it  was  by  Dr.  Hopkins, 
Dr.  Emmons,  and  otjiers,  gained  many  proselytes,  and 
seemed  likely,  at  one  time,  to  become  the  universal 
creed.  Its  metaphysical  abstrusities  and  distinctions 
gave  it  an  interest  for  the  student ;  and  its  plausible 
and  common-sense  terms  gave  it  popularity  with  the 
people.  In  the  meantime,  however,  several  causes 
conspired  to  introduce  a  great  revokition  in  the  reli- 
gious sentiments  of  many,  which,  as  it  has  had  a  very 
important  influence  in  modifying  Calvinism  itself,  I 
must  here  stop  to  notice ;  I  allude  to  the  introduction 
of  Unitarianism  and  Universalism.  The  proximate 
causes  of  the  introduction  of  these  sentiments  were, 
among  others,  probably  the  following.  The  Antino- 
mian  features  of  old  Calvinism  had  introduced  into.the 
churches  a  heartless  Christianity  and  a  very  lax  dis- 
cipline. It  was  natural,  therefore,  when  religion  had 
come,  in  point  of  fact,  to  consist  chiefly  in  external 
performances,  for  its  votaries  to  seek  a  theory  that 
would  accord  with  their  practice.  Unitarianism  was 
precisely  such  a  theory.  It  is  also  to  be  noticed,  that 
the  state  of  formality  and  spiritual  death  that  pre- 
vailed, was  greatly  increased  by  the  withering  alliance 
which  then  existed  between  the  church  and  civil  go- 
vernment. This  revolution  was  undoubtedly  hastened 
also  by  the  ultraism,  on  the  one  part,  and  the  technical 
inconsistencies  on  the  other,  of  the  Hopkinsian  the- 
ory. The  elements  had  been  long  in  motion,  and  at 
length  they  united  in  an  array  of  numbers  and  influ 


88  CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY. 

ence  that  wrested  the  fairest  portions  of  their  eccle- 
siastical domain  from  the  orthodox  churches  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, and  turned  them  over,  together  with  the 
richly  endowed  university  of  the  state,  into  the  hands 
of  the  Unitarians. 

In  Connecticut,  Unitarianism,  as  that  term  is  com- 
monly understood  among  us,  has  not  prevailed.  There 
is,  I  believe,  but  one  Unitarian  pastor,  properly  so 
called,  in  the  state.  This  sentiment,  however,  pre- 
vails very  extensively  in  this  and  all  the  other  New- 
England  states,  as  well  as  in  many  other  parts  of  the 
Union,  under  the  name  of  Universalism ;  a  sentiment 
which  differs  but  little  from  Socinianism,  and  had  its 
origin  doubtless  from  the  same  source.  About  half  a 
century  since,  a  Calvinistic  clergyman,  as  he  was 
supposed  to  be  to  the  day  of  his  death,  left  a  posthu- 
mous work,  which  was  published,  entitled,  "Calvin- 
ism Improved."  It  was  merely  an  extension  of  the 
doctrines  of  unconditional  election  and  irresistible 
grace  to  all  instead  of  a  part.  From  the  premises 
the  reasoning  seemed  fair,  and  the  conclusions  legiti- 
mate. This  made  many  converts.  And  this  idea  of 
universal  salvation,  when  once  it  is  embraced,  can 
easily  be  moulded  into  any  shape,  provided  its  main 
feature  is  retained.  It  has  finally  pretty  generally 
run  into  the  semi-infidel  sentiments  of  710  atone- 
Tnent — no  divine  Saviour — no  Holy  Ghostj  and  7io 
supernatural  change  of  heart ;  as  well  as  '•'  no  hell — 
no  devil — no  angry  God."  It  may  be  a  matter  of 
some  surprise,  perhaps,  to  a  superficial  observer,  or  to 
one  not  personally  acquainted  with  the  circumstances 
of  the  case,  why,  in  leaving  Calvinism,  these  men 
should  go  so  far  beyond  the  line  of  truth.  But  in  this 
we  see  the  known  tendency  of  the  human  mind  to 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  89 

run  into  extremes.  The  repulsive  features  of  the  old 
system  drove  them  far  the  other  way.  It  ought  to  be 
remembered,  also,  that  there  were  few,  if  any,  who 
were  stationed  on  the  medium  line,  to  arrest  and  de 
lay  the  public  mind  in  its  fearful  recoil  from  the 
'•horrible  decree."  Had  Methodism  been  as  well 
known  in  New-England  fifty  years  ago,  as  it  now  is, 
it  is  doubtful  whether  Universalism  or  Unitarianism 
would  have  gained  much  influence  in  this  country. 
Late  as  it  was  introduced,  and  much  as  it  was  opposed, 
it  is  believed  to  have  done  much  toward  checking  the 
progress  of  those  sentiments.  And  perhaps  it  is  in 
part  owing  to  the  earlier  introduction,  and  more  ex- 
tensive spread  of  Methodism,  in  Connecticut,  that 
Unitarianism  has  not  gained  more  influence  in  the 
state.  This  is  undoubtedly  the  fact  in  the  states  of 
Vermont,  New-Hampshire,  and  Maine,  where  Method- 
ism was  introduced  nearly  as  early  as  those  other 
sentiments.  The  result  has  shown  that  the  foregoing 
supposition  is  corroborated  by  facts  in  those  cases 
where  the  experiment  has  been  tried.  These  remarks 
may  not  now  be  credited,  but  the  time  will  come, 
when  the  prejudices  of  the  day  are  worn  ou.  that  the 
candid  historian  will  do  the  subject  justice.  But  to 
return — though  Unitarianism  and  Universalism  are 
believed  to  be  dangerous  errors,  yet,  as  is  often  the 
case,  they  have  contributed  much,  doubtless,  to  detect 
the  errors  and  modify  the  features  of  the  opposite 
system.  Simultaneously  with  them,  the  Methodists 
have  engaged  in  opposing  the  Calvinistic  dogmas. 
This  close  examination  and  thorough  opposition,  with 
such  other  causes  as  may  have  co-operated  in  the 
work,  have  driven  some  of  the  peculiarities  of  the 
Hopkinsian  theory  into  disrepute,  more  suddenly  even 


90  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

than  they  rose  into  credit.  The  subUmated  doctrine 
of  disinterested  benevolence  was  so  h'ke  "  an  airy- 
nothing,"  that  even  the  speculative  minds  of  the 
shrewdest  metaphysicians  could  not  find  for  it  "a 
local  habitation,"  in  heaven  or  on  earth;  and  the 
almost  blasphemous  dogma,  that  God  was  the  efficient 
cause  of  sin,  was  more  abhorrent,  if  possible,  than 
even  the  horrible  decree  of  reprobation.  Both,  there- 
fore, with  the  exceptions  hereafter  mentioned,  dis- 
appeared. The  former,  being  of  an  ethereal  character, 
silently  evaporated  into  ^-  thin  air  ;"  but  the  other, 
being  of  a  grosser  nature,  and  withal  more  essential 
to  the  system  itself,  settled  to  the  bottom,  and  is  now 
rarely  visible,  except  when  the  hand  of  controversy 
shakes  up  the  sediment.  The  doctrine  of  universal 
atonement,  however,  was  retained,  and  the  theological 
vocabulary  was  not  only  retained,  but  enlarged  and 
improved.  So  that  from  that  day  to  this,  we  hear 
but  little  of  the  doctrine  of  reprobation,  or  of  the  de- 
crees of  God,  but  much  is  said  of  God's  "electing 
love,"  his  "  divine  sovereignty,"  and  "  gracious  pur- 
poses ;"  by  which  is  meant,  according  to  the  glossary, 
the  doctrine  of  unconditional  election  and  reproba- 
tion, and  of  absolute  predestination.  The  scriptures, 
also,  which  used  to  be  quoted  to  prove  the  direct 
efficiency  of  God  in  producing  sin  and  securing  the 
condemnation  of  the  reprobate,  receive  a  different  ex- 
planation, varying  but  little,  if  any,  from  the  Arminian 
interpretation  of  those  passages.  It  cannot  be  doubted, 
I  think,  that  there  has  been  quite  a  change  in  the 
views  of  the  great  body  of  the  Calvinists — and  yet 
not  so  great  and  so  thorough  a  change  as  appearances 
and  terms  might  at  first  view  seem  to  indicate.  It  is 
not  easy  to  eradicate  old  prejudices.     And  it  is  often 


CALVINISTIC  CONTROVERSY.  91 

found  that  the  mind  will  cHng  to  the  first  principles 
of  a  favourite  system,  even  after  the  other  parts  are 
so  modified  as  that  the  new  principles  would  supplant 
the  old,  if  suffered  to  be  carried  out  into  a  consistent 
whole.  In  every  such  case,  much  labour  and  argu- 
ment will  be  spent  in  trying  to  unite  the  old  with  the 
new ;  but  in  every  instance  the  rent  becomes  worse. 
This  leads  to  a  kind  of  vacillating  policy,  and  an 
ambiguous  course  of  argument,  accompanied  with 
reiterated  complaints,  that  the  opposers  of  the  system 
misunderstand  and  misrepresent  it.  And  it  would  be 
no  wonder  if  the  constant  friction  in  the  incongruous 
machinery  should  chafe  the  mind,  and  lead  to  a  dog- 
matic and  an  impatient  spirit.  How  far  this  corre- 
sponds with  the  existing  facts,  in  the  Calvinistic  con- 
troversy, others  can  judge.  In  my  own  view,  the 
peculiar  circumstances  of  the  case,  connected  with  the 
known  character  of  the  human  mind,  fully  account 
for  the  apparent  tergiversation  and  changing  of  argu- 
ment, in  this  controversy,  without  criminating  the 
motives  of  our  predestinarian  brethren,  as  some  have 
unjustly  accused  me  of  doing.  The  different  parts 
of  the  system  have  lost,  in  a  measure,  their  original 
affinities,  and  yet  they  have  some  partial  and  irregular 
attractions,  which  lead  them  to  unite  in  unnatural 
and  grotesque  forms.  And  as  there  is  no  common 
consent  and  settled  mode  of  operating  among  the 
many  who  are  experimenting  upon  the  materials, 
there  are  various  sectional  and  individual  formations 
which  are  inconsistent  with  each  other.  And  their 
incongruity  is  the  more  apparent  from  the  unanimous 
effort  (which  I  believe  is  the  only  work  of  union  in 
"  the  class")  to  amalgamate  each  and  every  variety 


92  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

with  the  old  substratum  of  the  system — "God  fore- 
ordains whatsoever  comes  to  pass." 

The  completion  of  this  historical  sketch,  together 
with  a  view  of  the  present  state  of  the  Calvinistic 
parties,  may  be  expected  in  the  next  number.  After 
which  it  is  proposed  to  proceed  to  an  examination  of 
the  doctrines  in  dispute. 


NUMBER  V. 

SAME     SUBJECT    CONTINUED. 

One  modification  of  Calvinism  remains  to  be  men- 
tioned. It  is  known  by  the  name  of  the  "  New 
Divinity."  The  theological  doctors  connected  with 
Yale  College  are  the  reputed  authors  of  this  system. 
It  is  evident,  however,  that  the  tendency  of  the  Cal- 
vinistic theory  has  been  in  this  direction  for  a  number 
of  years.  The  "  New  Divinity,"  so  alarming  to  some 
of  the  Calvin ists,  is  only  the  ripe  fruits  of  the  very 
plants  which  they  have  long  cultivated  with  assiduous 
care.  And  why  should  they  start  back  at  results 
which  they  have  long  laboured  to  produce?  This 
theory,  in  the  first  place,  is  an  attempt  to  make  the 
doctrine,  and  the  technical  terms  alluded  to,  coincide. 
In  the  second  place,  it  is  designed,  by  a  new  philoso- 
phy of  predestination,  to  get  rid  of  the  "logical  conse- 
quences" that  have  always  pressed  heavily  upon  the 
old  system.  Finally,  it  is  a  device  to  reconcile  the 
doctrine  of  depravity  with  the  former  current  senti- 
ment, that  man  has  natural  ability  to  convert  him- 
self and  get  to  heaven  without  grace.  The  two  pillars 
of  the  new  system  are,  1.  "  Sin  is  not  a  propagated 
property  of  the  human  soul,  but  consists  wholly  in 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  93 

moral  exercise.^^  2.  "  Sin  is  not  the  necessary  means 
of  the  greatest  good  ;"  or,  in  other  words,  "  Sin  is  not 
preferable  to  hohness  in  its  stead."  The  Calvinistic 
opposers  of  this  theory  tell  us  that  these  sentiments 
have  been  held  and  taught  to  some  extent  for  the  last 
ten  years.  They  were  more  fully  and  more  openly 
announced,  however,  by  Dr.  Taylor,  of  the  theo- 
logical school  belonging  to  Yale  College,  in  a 
concio  ad  cleriim  preached  September  10th,  1828. 
From  the  time  of  the  publication  of  this  sermon  the 
alarm  has  been  sounded,  and  the  controversy  has 
been  carried  on.  The  opposers  of  the  new  doctrine 
call  it  heresy  ;  and  in  a  late  publication  they  seem  to 
intimate  that  Dr.  Taylor  and  his  associates  are  nearly 
if  not  quite  as  heretical  as  the  author  of  the  sermon 
on  predestination  and  election.  The  doctor  and  his 
friends,  on  the  other  hand,  strenuously  maintain  that 
they  are  orthodox ;  and  to  prove  it,  they  repeat,  again 
and  again,  "  We  believe  that  God  did,  for  his  own 
glory,  foreordain  whatsoever  comes  to  pass."  The 
Christian  Spectator,  an  ably  conducted  quarterly 
journal,  is  devoted  chiefly  to  the  defence  of  this 
theory,  aided  by  the  New- York  Evangelist,  and 
several  other  minor  periodicals,  and  by  a  very  respect- 
able body  of  the  clergy.  What  proportion,  however, 
have  embraced  this  system  is  not  known  ;  but  many, 
both  in  and  out  of  Connecticut,  have  espoused  the 
cause  with  great  zeal.  The  contest  waxes  warmer 
each  year.  Against  the  theory,  Dr.  Woods,  of  the 
Andover  Theological  Seminary;  Dr.  Griflin,  of 
Williams  College ;  Dr.  Tyler,  of  Portland  ;*  the  Rev. 


*  Now  at  the  head  of  the  new  theological  school,  East  Windsor, 
Conn. 


94  CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY. 

Mr.  Hervey,  of  Connecticutj  and  several  others  have 
entered  the  Hsts  of  controversy ;  and,  last  of  all,  a 
pamphlet,  supposed  to  be  the  joint  labour  of  a  number 
of  clergymen,  has  been  published,  in  which  the  New 
Divinity  is  denounced  as  heresy,  a  formal  separation 
of  the  churches  is  predicted,  and  a  withdrawal  of 
patronage  from  Yale  College  is  threatened  on  the 
ground  that  "  Yale  will  become  in  Connecticut  what 
Harvard  is  in  Massachusetts."  It  is  uncertain,  how- 
ever, whether  those  ultra  measures  will  be  responded 
to  by  the  great  body  of  the  clergy  in  New-England. 

There  is  a  party  which  still  adheres  to  the  old— I 
may  say,  perhaps,  to  the  oldest  modification  of  Cal- 
vinism in  this  country.  This  party  are  for  main 
taining  the  old  landmarks  at  all  hazards,  rightly 
judging  that  these  palliations  and  explanations  of 
the  system  will  ultimate  in  its  destruction.  They 
are  not  numerous,  but  still  respectable  as  to  num- 
bers and  talents.  They  are  sustained  in  Boston  by 
the  Boston  Telegraph,  so  called,  a  weekly  periodical, 
which  does  not  hesitate  to  go  the  whole  length — 
logical  consequences  and  all.  Witness  the  following 
quotation  from  a  review  of  my  sermon,  in  the  num- 
ber for  January  23d.  Speaking  of  the  charge,  in  the 
sermon,  that  Calvinism  makes  God  the  author  of  sin, 
the  writer  says : — "  The  word  author  is  sometimes 
used  to  mean  efficient  cause.  Now  I  am  willing  to 
admit  that  those  scriptures  which  teach  that  God 
has  decreed  the  sinful  conduct  of  men  do  imply  that 
he  is  the  efficient  cause  of  moral  evil.  For  his  own 
glory  and  the  greatest  good  he  said.  Let  there  he  sin, 
and  there  was  sinUP^  The  following  is  another 
specimen  of  Calvinism  from  the  same  periodical : — 
If  any  man  "  affirms  that  man  really  chooses^  and 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY.  95 

that  his  acts  of  will  are  caused  by  his  own  free,  vo- 
luntary, and  efficient  mind,  then  he  is  no  CalvinistJ^ 
In  this  last  quotation,  as  well  as  in  the  preceding, 
there  is  the  most  direct  opposition  to  Dr.  Taylor, 
since  he  maintains,  if  I  understand  him,  that  man's 
is  an  independent  agency — that  the  human  mind  is 
the  originator  of  thought  and  volition.  Thus  are 
these  two  branches  of  the  Calvinistic  family  directly 
at  variance  with  each  other.  And,  in  fact,  the  Tele- 
graph and  its  supporters  are  not  only  at  variance  with 
the  newest  divinity,  but  with  all  the  different  degrees 
of  new,  newer,  nexoest,  and  denounce  them  all  as 
heresy. 

The  present  advocates  of  predestination  and  parti- 
cular election  may  be  divided  into  four  classes : — 
1 .  The  old-school  Calvinists.  2.  Hopkinsians.  3.  Re- 
formed Hopkinsians.  4.  Advocates  of  the  New 
Divinity.  By  the  Reformed  Hopkinsians  I  mean  those 
who  have  left  out  of  their  creed  Dr.  Hopkins'  doctrine 
of  disinterested  benevolence,  divine  efficiency  in  pro- 
ducing sin,  &c.,  and  yet  hold  to  a  general  atonement, 
natural  ability,  <fec.  These  constitute,  doubtless,  the 
largest  division  in  the  "class"  in  New-England 
Next,  as  to  numbers,  probably,  are  the  new  school, 
then  Hopkinsians,  and  last,  the  old  school.  These 
subdivisions  doubtless  run  into  each  other  in  various 
combinations;  but  the  outlines  of  these  four  sub- 
classes are,  I  think,  distinctly  maiked. 

The  preceding  sketch  has  been  confined  mostly  to 
the  theological  changes  in  New-England ;  bu^  will 
apply,  to  a  considerable  extent,  to  other  partWf  the 
nation.  The  Presbyterian  Church,  by  reason  of  its 
ecclesiastical  government,  is  more  consolidated,  and 
of  course  less  liable  to  change  than  the  independent 


96  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

Congregational  Churches  of  the  eastern  states.  But 
the  Presbyterian  Church  has  felt  the  changes  of  the 
east,  and  is  coming  more  and  more  under  their  influ- 
ence. It  is  now  a  number  of  years  since  the  "  triangle," 
as  it  was  called,  was  published  in  New- York.  This 
was  a  most  severe  and  witty  allegory  against  the 
dogmas  and  bigotry  of  old  Calvinism.  From  this  work 
this  old  theory  has  obtained  the  epithet  of  "triangular." 
Whenever  a  man  advocates  the  doctrine  of  limited 
atonement,  imputed  sin,  and  imputed  righteousness, 
he  is  said  to  be  "  triangular."  These  old  triangular 
notions  are  giving  place  very  rapidly  to  modern  im- 
provements. And  although  the  most  strenuous  oppo  • 
sition  has  been  made  in  the  General  Assembly,  in 
different  publications,  and  elsewhere,  yet  the  votes  in 
the  last  General  Assembly  show,  I  think,  that  the 
whole  church  is  yielding  herself  up  to  the  resistless 
march  of  innovation.  It  may  be  doubted  whether 
the  state  of  New -York  is  not  emphatically  the  strong 
hold  of  the  New  Divinity,  so  far  as  popular  sentiment 
is  concerned ;  and  whether,  indeed,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  New-Haven,  there  is  not  the  greatest  moral 
influence  enlisted  there  for  the  propagation  of  the 
new  theory. 

Thus  have  I  endeavoured  to  glance  over  the 
various  modifications  and  present  characteristics  of 
that  mode  of  Christian  doctrines  called  Calvinism. 
Here  a  few  suggestions  present  themselves,  which, 
from  their  relation  to  the  present  controversy,  I  will 
now  set  down. 

It  fcms  singular  that,  differing  as  they  profess  to, 
so  materially,  on  many  points,  each  individual  of  each 
subclass  should  feel  himself  injured  whenever  Cal- 
vinism, under  this  common  name,  is  opposed  in  any 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  97 

of  its  features.  The  sermon  on  predestination  was 
against  Calvinism^  and  lo  !  all  parties  rise  up  against 
the  sermon.  And  yet,  whether  it  object  to  Calvinistic 
policy  or  to  Calvinistic  doctrine,  the  different  parties 
accuse  their  opponents  of  being  guilty  of  the  charge, 
but  they  themselves  are  clear.  I  cannot  think  of  a 
single  important  position  assumed  by  the  sermon 
against  predestination  and  election,  which  is  not  sus- 
tained by  Calvinists  themselves  in  opposition  to  some 
of  their  brethren  ;  nor  yet  of  a  single  charge  against 
their  policy,  for  their  changes  and  ambiguous  me- 
thods of  stating  and  defending  their  doctrines,  which 
has  not  been  reiterated  by  professed  Calvinists  them- 
selves against  their  brethren.  Thus  the  sermon  is 
sustained  by  the  Calvinists  themselves,  and  yet  they 
all  condemn  it !  If  some  Calvinists  think  that  the 
objections  of  the  sermon  lie  against  some  modifica- 
tions of  their  system,  is  it  not  possible  that  these  ob- 
jections have  a  more  general  application  than  any  of 
them  seem  willing  to  acknowledge  ?  For  example  : 
it  is  objected  to  predestination  that  it  "  makes  God 
the  author  of  sin,  destroys  free  agency,  arrays  God's 
decrees  against  his  revealed  word,  mars  his  moral 
attributes,  puts  an  excuse  into  the  mouth  of  the  im- 
penitent sinner,  implies  unconditional  reprobation, 
makes  God  partial  and  a  respecter  of  persons,  neces- 
sarily limits  the  atonement,"  (fee.  These  charges, 
say  the  Calvinists,  are  very  unjust,  ungenerous — in 
fact,  they  bear  false  witness  against  our  neighbours. 
This  is  said  by  Mr.  Metcalf,  and  by  others  of  the  New- 
Haven  school.  And  yet  what  says  the  Spectator,  the 
organ  and  oracle  of  that  school  ?  It  says  of  Dr.  Tyler, 
and  of  others  who  oppose  the  peculiar  views  of  Dr. 
Taylor,  comprising,  as  we  have  seen,  the  great  majo- 
5 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY 


rity  of  CalvinistSj  that  their  views  "  limit  God  in  power 
and  goodness  " — "  make  the  worst  kind  of  moral  action 
the  best " — "  if  carried  out  in  their  legitimate  conse- 
quences, would  lead  to  Universalism,  to  infidelity,  to 
atheism" — "they  confound  right  and  wrong,  and 
subvert  all  moral  distinctions  " — "  according  to  these 
views,  mankind  are  bound  to  believe  that  they  shall 
please  and  glorify  God  more  by  sin  than  by  obedience, 
and  therefore  to  act  accordingly  " — "  nothing  worse 
can  be  imputed  to  the  worst  of  men  than  this  theory 
imputes  to  God  "  !  !  !*  Has  the  author  of  the  sermon 
said  more  than  this  and  worse  than  this  of  Calvinism? 
And  shall  he  be  accused  by  these  very  men  of  bearing 
false  witness  against  his  brethren  ?  And  let  it  be  ob- 
served farther,  in  justification  of  the  sermon,  that  these 
charges  in  the  Spectator  are  made  by  men  who  have 
been  brought  up  at  the  feet  of  the  Calvin istic  doctors, 
and  have  themselves  grown  up  to  the  character  and 
rank  of  doctors  in  theology.  They  know  the  system 
thoroughly ;  they  have  made  it  the  study  of  their  lives, 
and  have  they  testified  to  the  truth  respecting  this 
theory  ?  So  the?i  has  the  author  of  the  sermon.  Such 
is  the  testimony  on  the  one  side  ;  and  on  the  other  we 
have  decided  predestinarians  acknowledging,  as  an 
article  of  their  creed,  what  in  the  sermon  was  urged 
as  only  a  logical  consequence.  According  to  this 
system,  says  the  sermon,  ''the^«^  of  God  brought 
forth  sin  as  certainly  as  it  made  the  world."  Hear  the 
Boston  Telegraph  : — "  God,  for  his  own  glory  and  for 
the  good  of  the  world,  said,  Let  there  he  si7i,  and 
there  was  sin ! "  Now  I  beo-  the  reader  to  look  at  this 
subject  for  a  moment.  For  brevity's  sake  we  will 
call  the  Boston  Telegraph  and  its  supporters  No.  1 : 

*  See  Christian  Spectator,  Vol.  iv,  No.  3. 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  99 

the  Andover  Theological  Seminary  and  its  supporters, 
which  constitute  by  far  the  larger  body  of  predestina- 
rians  in  New-England,  No.  2 ;  and  the  New-Haven 
divines  and  their  supporters  No.  3.  The  sermon 
charges  predestination  with  making  God  the  author 
of  sin.  No.  2  says  this  is  false  :  I  neither  believe  it.  nor 
is  it  to  be  inferred  from  my  premises.  It  is  true,  says 
No.  1 :  I  am  willing  to  admit  that  God  is  the  efficient 
cause  of  sin.  He  said,  "Let  there  be  sin,  and  there 
was  sin."  It  is  true,  responds  No.  3,  that  all  who  hold 
and  explain  predestination  as  Nos.  1  and  2  explain  itj 
are  exposed  to  the  full  force  of  the  objections  in  the 
sermon — against  such  views  "  the  arguments  of  the 
sermon  a-re  unanswerable."  No.  2,  in  vindication, 
says  that  No.  1  is  on  the  old  plan — very  few  hold  with 
him  in  these  days.  And  as  for  No.  3,  he  is  already  a 
rank  Arminian ;  and  if  he  would  be  consistent,  he 
must  give  up  unconditional  election,  and  embrace  the 
whole  Arminian  theory.  Thus  do  they  destroy  each 
other,  and  confirm  the  doctrine  of  the  sermon.  And 
shall  we  still  be  told  that  we  do  not  understand  this 
doctrine?  Have  antipredestinarians  misunderstood 
this  from  John  Calvin's  day  to  the  present?  Does 
honest  No.  1  misunderstand  it  ?  Does  well  instructed 
No.  3  misunderstand  it  ?  What  then  is  Calvinism, 
that  cannot,  through  the  lapse  of  centuries,  make  itself 
understood  either  by  friend  or  foe  ?  Is  not  this,  of 
itself,  a  suspicious  trait  in  its  character  ?  Let  us  quote 
a  Calvinistic  writer,  whose  sentiments  are  much  in 
point,  though  aimed  at  the  New  Divinity  : — "It  is  a 
serious  ground  of  suspicion,"  says  this  writer,  "  that 
Dr.  Taylor  has  failed,  according  to  his  own  repeated 
declarations,  to  render  his  speculations  intelligible  to 
others.    It  must  be  granted  that  a  man  of  sense,  who 


100  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

is  acquainted  with  the  power  of  language,  can^  if  he 
is  disposed,  make  himself  understood."  "  Some  of  the 
most  intelligent  men  in  the  country  have  utterly  failed 
to  compass  Dr.  Taylor's  meaning  in  argument :  so  that 
he  declares  again  and  again,  I  am  not  understood— I 
am  misrepresented.  Who  under  such  circumstances 
can  refrain  from  suspicion  ?"  "Another  suspicious  cir- 
cumstance in  the  case  is,  that  Dr.  Taylor  expresses 
himself  in  ambiguous  terms  and  phrases,  which,  though 
they  are  designed  to  influence  the  mind  of  a  reader, 
afford  him  the  opportunity  to  avoid  responsibility."  See 
pamphlet  by  Edwardian,  pp.  28,  29.  If  this  is  justly 
said  of  Dr.  Taylor's  recent  theory,  what  shall  we  say 
of  a  system  the  advocates  of  which,  "  according  to  their 
repeated  declarations,  have  not  been  able  to  render 
their  speculations  intelligible,"  after  the  theory  has  had 
exhausted  upon  it  the  highly  cultivated  intellects  of 
hosts  of  expositors  through  successive  generations? 
"  Who,  under  such  circumstances,  can  refrain  from 
suspicion?"  especially  since  these  advocates  have 
learned  i^  to  express  themselves  in  ambiguous  terms 
and  phrases,  which,  though  they  are  designed  to  in- 
fluence the  mind  of  a  reader,  afford  them  an  oppor- 
tunity to  avoid  responsibility."  To  Calvinism  it  may 
truly  be  said,  "  Out  of  thine  own  mouth  will  I  judge 
thee."  Let  not  the  author  of  the  sermon  then  be  ac- 
cused of  bearing  false  witness,  when  his  testimony  is 
predicated  on  principles  which  Calvinists  have  laid 
down,  and  is  also  corroborated  by  men  of  their  "  own 
class." 

Will  it  be  said,  All  this  is  not  argument  ?  I  answer, 
The  sermon,  it  is  supposed,  contains  arguments — 
arguments  which  professed  predestinarians  them- 
selves tell  us  are  unanswerable  against  the  prevailing 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  101 

modes  of  stating  and  explaining  the  doctrine.  Now 
let  them  be  answered^  if  they  can  be.  Let  them  be 
answered,  not  by  giving  up  predestination,  in  the 
Calvinistic  sense,  and  still  professing  to  hold  it — not 
by  attempting  to  avoid  the  logical  consequences,  by 
giving  the  system  the  thousandth  explanation,  when 
the  nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine  already  given  have 
made  it  no  plainer,  nor  evaded  at  all  the  just  con- 
sequences, so  often  charged  upon  it ;  and  when  these 
are  answered,  it  will  then  be  time  enough  to  call  foi 
new  arguments. 

Having  prepared  the  way,  as  I  hope,  by  the  pre- 
ceding numbers,  for  the  proper  understanding  of  the 
controversy  :  and  having,  by  the  remarks  just  made, 
attempted  (with  what  success  the  reader  must  judge) 
to  repel  the  charges  of  misrepresentation  and  bearing 
false  witness,  made  against  me,  as  the  author  of  the 
sermon  which  gave  rise  to  the  controversy,  I  am 
now  prepared,  in  my  next  number,  to  commence  an 
examination  of  some  of  the  questions  of  doctrine 
connected  with  this  discussion.  In  doing  which,  my 
object  will  be  to  let  "  Greek  with  Greek  contend"  so 
far  as  to  show,  if  possible,  the  inconsistency  of  both, 
and  then  present  the  doctrine  which  we  believe  to  be 
the  true  system,  and  show  how  it  stands  untouched, 
by  the  conflicting  elements  around  it,  as  the  immo- 
vable foundation  of  the  church  of  God.  I  shall  begin 
with  the  divine  purposes,  including  foreknowledge ; 
then  take  up  human  agency  and  responsibility  ;  and 
last,  regeneration,  connected  with  the  doctrine  of  hu- 
man depravity,  divine  and  human  agency,  (fcc.  May 
He  that  said,  "  Let  light  be,  and  light  was,"  "  shine 
in  our  hearts,  to  give  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of 
the  glory  of  God,  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ," 


103  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

NUMBER  VI. 

PREDESTINATION. 

Definitions  are  the  foundations  of  reasoning. 
Hence,  in  any  reply  to  my  sermon  on  predestination 
and  election,  it  was  natural  and  fair  that  the  first 
inquiry  should  be,  Are  the  definitions  correct  ?  The 
definition  of  predestination  assumed  in  the  sermon 
was,  That  unalterable  purpose  and  efficient  decree 
of  God^  by  which  the  moral  character  and  respon- 
sible acts  of  man  were  definitely  fixed  and  efficiently 
produced.  On  this  point  the  sermon  joined  issue. 
To  this  definition  most  of  the  notices  and  reviews,  to 
the  number  of  six  or  seven,  which  I  have  seen,  have 
taken  exceptions.  The  review  in  the  Boston  Tele- 
graph, however,  is  not  of  this  number.  That,  as  has 
already  been  noticed,  agrees  with  the  charge  in  the 
sermon,  that  "  the  fiat  of  God  brought  forth  sin  as 
directly  as  it  made  the  world."  We  have  only  to 
leave  those  Oalvinists  who  accord  to  that  sentiment 
to  struggle,  as  they  can,  against  the  arguments  of  the 
sermon — against  the  common  sense  of  the  world — 
against  their  own  convictions  of  right  and  wrong — 
and,  I  may  add,  against  their  own  brethren  of  "  the 
class,"  some  of  whom  have  already  publicly  denounced 
the  sentiment  as  "  horrid  blasphemy."  At  this  day 
of  light,  in  which  naked  Calvinism  is  abhorred  by 
most  of  those  who  bear  the  name  of  Oalvinists,  it  is 
hardly  necessary  to  give  a  formal  answer  to  such  a 
review.  We  approve  of  the  logical  consistency  of 
these  men — we  admire  the  moral  courage  that,  from 
assumed  premises,  pushes  out  a  theory  to  its  legitimate 
results  without  flinching ;  but  we  are  astonished  at 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY.  103 

the  moral  n^rve  that  can  contemplate  such  results 
with  complacency.  For  myself  I  confess,  when  I  see 
this  naked  system  of  Calvinism  fulminating  the  curse 
of  reprobation  in  the  teeth  of  the  miserable  wretch 
whose  only  crime  is,  that  his  God  has  made  him  a 
sinner,  my  heart  recoils  with  indescribable  horror ! 
Let  him  contemplate  this  picture  who  can.  I  covet 
not  his  head  nor  his  heart. 

Of  others  who  have  expressed  their  views  of  the 
sermon  there  are  two  classes  : — 1.  The  conductors 
of  the  Christian  Spectator  and  those  who  favour 
their  views  ;  and,  2.  Those  who,  in  a  former  number, 
were  called  Reformed  Hopkinsians.  The  latter  com- 
prehend the  larger  portion  of  Calvinists  in  New- 
England,  and  probably  in  the  United  States.  Their 
views  on  predestination  shall  be  noticed  in  another 
number.  At  present  I  shall  direct  my  remarks  to  the 
letters  of  Mr.  Metcalf  and  to  the  first  and  second 
notices  of  the  sermon  in  the  Christian  Spectator. 
And  here  let  me  say,  once  for  all,  that  I  do  not  con- 
sider either  of  these  gentlemen,  or  any  who  think 
with  them,  responsible  for  the  doctrine  of  predestina- 
tion as  stated  and  opposed  in  the  sermon.  This  I 
hope  will  be  satisfactory.  If  these  gentlemen  should 
ask  me  why  I  published  my  sermon  in  terms  that 
included  Calvinists  generally,  without  making  the 
exception  in  their  favour,  I  answer,  1.  The  views 
of  Dr.  Taylor  and  "  those  who  believe  with  him,"  on 
this  particular  point,  were  unknown  to  me  at  the 
time.  Nor  is  this  strange,  for  it  is  but  lately  that  those 
views  have  been  fully  developed — never  so  fully  be- 
fore, probably,  as  in  Dr.  Fitch's  review  of  my  sermon, 
already  alluded  to.  2.  It  never  occurred  to  me  that 
any  man  or  any  set  of  men  holding,  in  respect  to 


104  CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY. 

predestination,  the  doctrine  of  James  A^minius,  John 
Wesley,  and  the  whole  body  of  Methodists,  would 
call  themselves  Calvinists  ! !  This  is  all  the  apology 
I  have,  and  whether  or  not  it  is  sufficient,  the  public 
must  judge.  By  acknowledging  the  views  of  these 
gentlemen  to  be  Methodistical  on  the  subject  of  pre- 
destination, I  by  no  means  would  be  understood  to 
say  this  of  their  system  as  a  whole — the  objectionable 
parts  will  be  noticed  in  their  place.  But  whatever  is 
true  is  none  the  less  so  for  being  mixed  with  error. 
There  are  some  things,  however,  to  be  regretted  and 
exposed  in  the  manner  in  which  these  reviewers  have 
expressed  tlieir  doctrine  of  predestination,  and  also  in 
the  manner  in  which  they  have  opposed  the  sermon 
and  Arminianism  generally.  They  complain  of  my 
definition  of  predestination.  Mr.  Metcalf  thinks  it  is 
bearinof  false  Avitness.  The  reviewer  thinks  it  is  ob- 
viously  erroneous  and  unjust.  And  yet  they  them- 
selves acknowledge  that  the  sermon  is  an  unanswer- 
able refutation  of  predestination  as  held  by  Dr.  Tyler 
and  others  who  oppose  their  views.  But  what  is  a 
matter  of  the  greatest  surprise  is  the  determination 
with  which  these  gentlemen  persist  in  holding  up 
the  idea  that  their  views  essentially  difler  from  ours. 
Dr.  Fitch,  in  his  answer  to  my  reply,  says  : — 

"  There  are  three  views,  and  only  three,  which  can 
be  taken  of  the  divine  purposes  in  relation  to  a  moral 
kingdom : — 

"  1.  That  God,  foreseeing  the  certainty  of  the  con- 
duct of  his  creatures,  purposes  merely  to  treat  the^n 
in  a  corresponding  w^anner. 

"2.  That  he,  first  of  all,  resolves  what  the  conduct 
of  his  creatures  shall  he,  and  next  resolves  on  such 
measures  as  shall  brinff  them  to  that  conduct. 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  105 

^'3.  That,  foreseeing  the  conduct  which  will  cer- 
tainly ensue  on  the  different  measures  it  is  possible 
for  him  to  take,  he  purposes  to  imrsue  those  7neasures 
which  will  certainly  lead  to  the  best  possible  results.^^ 

"  The  first  view  is  that  which  we  understood  to  be 
advocated  by  Dr.  Fisk,  in  the  sermon  we  reviewed." 
The  writer  goes  on  farther  to  say  that  his  objection 
to  this  is,  "  that  it  is  utterly  deficient" — "  that  it  passes 
over  in  silence  all  those  acts  of  God  in  creation  and 
government  by  which  he  determines  character."  Of 
course  he  means  to  say  that  the  sermon  advocated  a 
theory  which  left  out  of  the  question  all  the  divine 
influence  in  determining  character.  How  strangely 
he  has  misunderstood  the  sermon,  let  those  judge 
who  have  read  it.  It  teaches  that  God  hath  fixed  the 
laws  of  the  physical  and  moral  world  ;  that  he  has  a 
general  plan,  suited  to  all  the  various  circumstances 
and  contingencies  of  government ;  that  God  gives  the 
sinner  power  to  choose  life  ;  that  his  grace  enlightens 
and  strengthens  the  sinner  to  seek  after  and  obtain 
salvation.  In  short,  it  must  be  obvious  that  no  man 
who  believes  in  the  divine  government  and  in  gospel 
provisions  can  leave  this  influence  out  of  his  system. 
I  will  therefore  venture  upon  the  following  declara- 
tion, which  it  is  presumed  Dr.  Fitch  cannot  gainsay, 
namely.  Dr.  Fitch  never  saiv  a  man  andj  never  heard 
of  a  man  that  .was  a  believer  in  revelation,  who  left 
out  of  his  creed  all  that  conduct  in  God  which  deter- 
mines character.  That  such  was  the  character  of  my 
creed,  the  reviewer  might  have  learned  in  my  reply 
to  his  first  review,  if  he  could  not  from  the  sermon. 
In  the  reply  it  is  said,  "As  God  foresaw  men  would 
sin,  he  also  determined  upon  the  plan  he  would  pur- 
sue in  reference  to  them  as  sinners,  and  arranged  in 
5* 


106  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

the  counsels  of  his  own  infinite  mind  the  extended 
concatenation  of  causes  and  effects  so  as  to  '  make  the 
wrath  of  man  praise  him,'  and  deduce  the  greatest 
possible  good  from  the  best  possible  system.^''  And 
yetj  strange  to  tell,  in  his  answer  to  my  reply,  the  re- 
viewer says  as  decidedly  as  if  it  were  an  undisputed' 
truth,  "  Dr.  Fisk  advocates  the  first,"  (meaning  the 
first  view  of  the  divine  purposes  given  above :)  "we 
brought  forward  the  third,"  (meaning  the  third  view.) 
'^  Now  since  the  third  upholds  the  fact  of  foreordi- 
nation,  free  from  the  objections  of  Dr.  Fisk,  we  have 
succeeded  in  upholding  the  fact  which  Dr.  Fisk,  as 
an  Arminian,  denies,  and  which  Calvinists  maintain." 
Whereas  he  ought  to  have  said,  for  he  had  my  state- 
ment for  it  directly  before  him,  "  Dr.  Fisk  advocates 
the  third,"  and  then  he  might  have  added,  "  Now  since 
the  third  destroys  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  foreordi- 
nation,  therefore  in  assisting  Dr.  Fisk  to  sustain  the 
third  we  have  succeeded  in  disproving  the  doctrine 
of  foreordination,  which  Arminians  deny,  and  Cal« 
vinists  have  attempted  to  maintain."  In  fact,  as  the 
reviewer  says,  there  can  be  but  those  three  views 
taken  of  the  divine  purposes  ;  and  since  neither  I  nor 
any  other  Arminian  ever  believed  in  the  first,  and  as 
Dr.  Fitch  himself  acknowledges  we  are  directly  op- 
posed to  the  second,  it  follows  that  we  must  believe 
the  third.  But  the  third  is  the  reviewer's  creed: 
therefore  on  this  point  he  is  an  Arminian,  or  we  are 
Calvinists. 

That  the  reviewer's  theory  on  predestination  is 
about  the  same  with  the  Methodists'  appears  evident 
from  the  following  quotations  fi-om  Mr.  Wesley,  in 
which  it  will  be  seen  that  not  only  does  Mr.  Wesley's 
creed  include  all  the  divine  influence  that  goes  "  to 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY.  107 

determine  character,"  but  also  that  God  "pursues 
measures  which  will  certainly  lead  to  the  best  possible 
results  ;"  nay,  that  he  does  all  that  he  wisely  can  to  ex- 
clude sin  from  the  moral  universe.  These  are  points 
for  which  the  advocates  oi  the  New-Haven  theory 
strongly  contend.  Let  them  see,  then,  how  in  this  mat- 
ter they  have  identified  themselves  with  Arminians. 

"To  God,"  says  Mr.  Wesley,  in  his  sermon  on 
divine  providence,  "  all  things  are  possible ;  and  we 
cannot  doubt  of  his  exerting  all  his  power,  as  in 
sustaining  so  in  governing  all  that  he  has  made.  Only 
he  that  can  do  all  things  else  cannot  deny  himself — 
he  cannot  counteract  himself  or  oppose  his  own  work. 
Were  it  not  for  this,  he  would  destroy  all  sin,  with  its 
attendant  pain,  in  a  moment.  But  in  so  doing  he 
would  counteract  himself,  and  undo  all  that  he  has 
been  doing  since  he  created  man  upon  the  earth.  For 
he  created  man  in  his  own  image — a  spirit  endued 
with  understanding,  with  will  or  affections,  and  liberty, 
without  which  he  would  have  been  incapable  of  either 
virtue  or  vice — he  could  not  be  a  moral  agent,  any 
more  than  a  tree  or  a  stone.  Therefore  (with  reve- 
rence be  it  spoken)  the  Almighty  himself  cannot  do 
this  thing.  He  cannot  thus  contradict  himself,  or  undo 
what  he  has  done.  But  were  he  to  do  this,  it  would 
imply  no  wisdom  at  all,  but  barely  a  stroke  of  omni- 
potence. Whereas  all  the  manifold  wisdom  of  God 
(as  well  as  all  his  power  and  goodness)  is  displayed  in 
governing  man  as  man — as  an  intelligent  and  free 
spirit,  capable  of  choosing  either  good  or  evil." 

Again.  In  the  sermon  entitled,  The  Wisdom  of 
God's  Counsels :  "  In  the  moral  world  evil  men  and 
evil  spirits  continually  oppose  the  divine  will,  and 
create  numberless  irresfularities.    Here  therefore  is  ful' 


108  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

scope  for  the  exercise  of  all  the  riches  both  of  the  wis- 
dom and  knowledge  of  God,  in  counteracting  all  the 
wickedness  and  folly  of  man,  and  all  the  subtlety  of 
Satan,  to  carry  on  his  glorious  design,  the  salvation 
of  lost  mankind."  Now  let  me  ask  the  reviewer.  Is 
this  leaving  out  all  the  divine  influence  that  deter 
mines  character  ?  Is  not  this  maintaining  that,  "  in 
view  of  the  measures  that  it  was  possible  for  God  to 
take,  he  purposes  to  pursue  those  measures  that  will 
certainly ' lead  to  the  best  possible  result?"  Is  Dr. 
Fitch  ignorant  of  what  Methodists  hold  to  ?  or  is  he 
unwilling  to  identify  himself  with  us  ?  Ignorant  oimy 
views  he  could  not  be,  I  think,  after  reading  my 
reply.  Why,  then,  does  he  persist  in  talking  of  a 
diiFerence  where  there  is  none  ? 

Mr.  Metcalf  has  taken  a  more  correct  view  of  the 
subject.  After  reading  my  reply,  he  says,  "  If  you 
will  preach  this  doctrine  to  your  Methodist  brethren 
thoroughly  and  forcibly,  and  sustain  it  with  the  strong 
arguments  on  which  the  doctrine  rests,  if  they  do  not 
call  it  Calvinism,  I  will  acknowledge  they  do  not 
understand  the  term  as  I  do.  And  if  you  will  preach 
in  the  same  way  to  Calvinists,  if  they  too  do  not  call 
it  Calvinism,  I  will  grant  that  even  they  too  some 
times  differ  about  terms.  If  you  will  take  this  course, 
I  think  when  you  shall  see  w^hat  the  doctrine  will  be 
called,  the  astonishment  you  express  that  it  should  be 
regarded  as  Calvinism  will  w^ear  away."  Now  how 
surprised  Mr.  Metcalf  will  be  when  he  learns  that  we 
have  always  preached  this  doctrine  as  thoroughly 
and  forcibly  as  we  could,  and  neither  Methodists  nor 
Calvinists  ever  suspected  it  was  Calvinism  until  he 
and  those  who  believe  with  him  incorporated  it  into 
their  creed,  and,  for  soine  7^e.ason  unknown  to  us, 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  109 

called  it  Calvinism  !  And  how  surprised  we  all  are 
to  find  that  he  who  was  so  anxious  to  be.  heard  in  the 
Christian  Advocate  and  Journal,  for  the  purpose  of 
informing  Methodists  what  Calvinism  was,  and  of 
disabusing  their  minds  of  erroneous  conceptions  on 
this  subject,  himself  understands  neither  Methodism 
nor  Calvinism  ! !  Yet  so  it  is,  Calvinists  themselves 
being  judges.  Dr.  Tyler,  Dr.  Griffin,  Dr.  Woods, 
the  author  of  "Views  in  Theology,"  the  author  or 
authors  of  the  pamphlet  by  an  Edwardian,  all  con- 
demn the  New-Haven  theory  of  predestination  as 
Anticalvinistic,  and  as  being  essentially  Arminian. 

Dr.  Fitch  acknowledges  that  we  agree  in  some 
of  the  first  principles.  In  reply  to  my  answer  he 
says,  "It  was  certainly  our  intention  to  place  this 
contested  doctrine  on  grounds  which  our  Wesleyan 
brethren  coidd  not  dispute,  and  it  gives  us  pleasure 
to  find  that  in  this  we  have  had  complete  success !" 
There  are  two  things  a  little  remarkable  connected 
with  this  sentiment.  One  is,  that  the  writer  should 
so  express  himself  as  to  convey  the  idea  that  he  has 
traced  up  tlie  subject  to  first  principles  with  much 
care,  and,  to  his  great  satisfaction,  has  succeeded  in 
convincing  us  of  the  correctness  of  his  premises. 
Whereas  it  is  evident  from  the  passages  already  given 
from  Mr.  Wesley,  and  from  the  universal  sentiments 
of  the  Wesleyan  Methodists,  that  the  New-Haven 
doctors  have  at  length  come  on  to  our  ground  ;  and 
it  gives  us  great  pleasure  to  find  that,  from  some 
source,  arguments  in  favour  of  our  system  have  with 
them  met  with  co7nj)lete  success.  The  other  thing 
that  strikes  me  as  remarkable  is,  that  after  the  re- 
viewer had  acknowledged  that  we  were  agreed  in 
these  first  principles,  he  should  immediately  go  on  to 


110  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

say,  as  has  already  been  mentioned,  that  I  and  the 
Arminians  hold  to  the  first  view  he  has  given  of  the 
three  possible  views  that  might  be  taken  of  pre- 
destination, and  deny  the  third  ;  when,  at  the  same 
time,  the  third  contains  those  very  first  priticiples  in 
which  he  says  we  are  agreed.  This  looks  so  much 
like  a  contradiction,  almost  in  the  same  breath,  that  I 
really  know  not  what  other  name  to  give  it.  If  these 
gentlemen  are  disposed  to  come  into  the  fortress  of 
truth,  and  assist  us  in  manning  our  guns  and  work- 
ing our  artillery  against  error,  we  certainly  can  have 
no  objection.  We  are  fond  of  help.  But  they  must 
pardon  us  if  we  revolt  a  Httle  at  the  idea  of  their 
taking  the  lead  in  this  business,  and  accounting  us  as 
mere  novices  who  have  only  learned,  and  that  too 
from  themselves,  some  of  the  elementary  'principles. 
Nay,  they  must  not  wonder  if  we  refuse  outright  to 
be  crowded  from  our  present  commanding  position  in 
the  fortress  of  truth,  and  to  be  placed  in  front  of  our 
own  batteries,  merely  to  give  our  new  allies  an  oppor- 
tunity to  blow  us  up  with  our  own  ordnance  ! 

In  reply  to  my  objections  to  the  reviewer  that  "  it 
was  an  abuse  of  terms  to  call  the  permission  of  sin, 
not  hinder^ing  it,  (fee,  a  foreordination  or  purpose 
that  it  shall  be,"  <fcc.,  he  has  said,  "If  an  evil,  un- 
avoidable and  hateful,  is  allowed  by  the  Creator  to 
come  into  his  kingdom.,  in  one  place  and  time  rather 
than  any  other,  and  is  thus  particularly  disposed  of 
by  his  providence,  because  it  is  a  disposition  of  it  the 
best  possible,  is  there  no  purpose  of  God  in  relation  to 
the  thing?  In  doing  his  own  pleasure,  in  this  case, 
does  he  not  decide  on  the  fact  of  the  entrance  of  sin 
into  his  kingdom  just  when  and  where  it  does  ?"  Now 
I  beg  the  reader  to  go  over  this  last  paragraph  once 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  Ill 

more,  and  then  say  if  he  does  not  agree  with  me  in 
the  following  sentiment,  namely,  there  rarely  occurs 
in  any  writer  an  instance  of  so  complete  an  evasion 
of  a  contested  question  as  is  here  exhibited.  Is  there 
no  difference  between  a  "purpose  in  relation  to  a 
thing,"  and  the  foreordaining  or  decreeing  that  the 
thing  shall  be  ?  And  pray  what  is  meant  by  God's 
"  deciding:  on  the  fact  of  the  entrance  of  sin  into  his 
kingdom?"  You  can  make  it  mean  almost  any  thing. 
But  taking  the  whole  of  Dr.  Fitch's  theory  on  the 
subject,  he  means  to  say,  doubtless,  that  since  the 
entrance  of  sin  was  unavoidable,  God  determined  to 
restrain  and  control  it  so  as  to  suffer  it  to  do  the 
least  harm  possible — preferring  holiness  in  its  stead 
in  every  place  where  it  occurs.  And  this  is  fore- 
ordaining sin  ! !  This  is  predestination  ! !  Let  us 
illustrate  this  by  a  case  in  point.  Cicero,  a  Roman 
consul,  knew  that  Cataline  was  plotting  treason 
against  the  commonwealth.  Cicero  perceived  that 
this  hated  treason^  though  unavoidable,  was  not 
wholly  unmanageable.  He  determined  therefore  to 
"  make  a  disposition  of  it  the  best  possible."  He  took 
his  measures  accordingly.  By  these  Cataline  and  the 
principal  conspirators  were  driven  out  of  the  city,  and 
compelled,  before  their  plans  were  matured,  to  resort 
to  open  hostilities.  Thus  the  citizens  w^ere  aroused 
and  united,  and  the  state  saved.  In  this  way  the 
evils  of  the  conspiracy  were  suffered  to  come  upon 
the  commonwealth  "in  one  place  and  time  rather 
than  any  other,"  and  "  were  thus  particularly  dis- 
posed of  by  Cicero.  In  this  case  the  consul  had  a 
special  "  purpose  about  the  thing."  He  determined  to 
drive  the  conspirators  into  open  war,  rather  than 
suffer  them  privately  to  corrupt  all  they  could,  and 


113  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

then  fill  the  city  with  fire  and  slaughter.  The  ques- 
tion now  is,  and  it  is  put  not  to  the  reviewer,  for  he 
still  persists  in  the  use  of  his  terms,  but  it  is  put  to 
the  common  understanding  of  community,  Did  the 
Roman  consul  ordain,  or  foreordain,  or  predestinate 
the  treason  of  Cataline  ?  If  by  common  consent  all 
answer.  No,  such  a  statement  is  a  libel  upon  the 
consul ;  and  if,  in  addition  to  this  common  under- 
standing of  the  term,  the  theological  use  of  the  term 
will  not  bear  such  a  construction  ;  if  the  great  body 
of  the  Calvinists  of  the  present  day,  and  of  New- 
England  even,  use  the  term  in  a  different  sense, 
it  remains  to  be  seen  how  the  New-Haven  divines 
can  stand  up  before  the  world  and  say,  "  We  be- 
lieve God  hath  foreordained  v/hatsoever  comes  to 
pass." 

Before  closing  this  number,  I  ought,  perhaps,  to  say 
a  few  things — if  not  in  the  defence,  at  least  explanatory 
of  that  course  of  reasoning  in  the  sermon  in  which  I 
undertook  to  show  that  foreknowledge  is  antecedent 
to  foreordination.  To  this  Mr.  Metcalf  and  others 
have  objected,  because,  say  they,  God  must  first  have 
determined  to  make  moral  agents  before  he  could 
know  they  would  sin  :  therefore  his  knowledge  or  his 
foreknowledge  in  this  case  must  depend  upon  his  de- 
termination. This  objection,  at  least  so  far  as  the 
New-Haven  theology  is  concerned,  is  founded  in  error. 
What  says  Dr.  Fitch ?  "That  God,  foreseeing  the 
conduct  which  will  certainly  ensue  on  the  different 
measures  it  is  possible  for  him  to  take,  purposes^^^  &c. 
The  sermon  says,  "  God  knows  all  that  is,  or  will  be, 
or  might  be,  under  any  possible  contingency,"  and 
that  "his  plan  is  the  result  of  his  infinite  knowledge— 
the  decrees  of  his  throne  flow  forth  from  the  eternal 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  113 

fountain  of  his  wisdom."  Where  is  the  discrepancy 
here  ?  God  saw  this  general  plan,  as  a  whole,  before 
he  resolved  upon  its  adoption  ;  (I  speak  now  of  the 
order  of  thought;)  he  saw,  if  he  made  free  moral 
agents,  and  governed  them  as  such,  sin  would  ensue. 
And  he  also  saw  what  he  might  do  in  that  case  to 
counteract  and  overrule  it  to  his  own  glory  and  the 
good  of  the  universe.  And  he  judged,  in  his  infinite 
wisdom,  that  such  a  moral  universe,  notwithstanding 
the  sin  that  would  certainly  result  from  it,  would,  on 
the  whole,  be  the  best ;  and  therefore  upon  this  fore- 
knoioledge  of  the  whole,  God  founded  his  determi 
nation  to  create  the  universe,  and  govern  it  as  pro- 
posed. God's  foreknowledge  of  the  certainty  of  any 
event  in  this  universe,  it  must  be  acknowledged,  de- 
pended upon  his  determination  to  create  and  govern 
the  universe.  And  in  this  sense  his  purpose  was 
causa  sine  qua  iion,  a  cause  without  which  any  given 
event  would  not  have  happened,  and  therefore  could 
not  have  been  foreseen  as  certain.  But  then  it  should 
be  remembered  that  there  was  a  foreknowledge  ante- 
rior to  all  this,  and  which  was,  in  fact,  the  foundation 
of  all  subsequent  instances  of  knowing  or  decreeing. 
It  is  therefore  true  in  the  sense  in  which  the  sentiment 
is  advanced  and  sustained  in  the  sermon,  that  "  God 
foreknows  in  order  to  predestinate,  but  he  does  not 
(primarily)  predestinate  in  order  to  foreknow." 

To  conclude :  from  the  view  taken  in  this  number 
it  appears  that  one  class  of  Calvinists  acknowledge 
that  predestination  is  chargeable  with  all  that  was 
included  in  my  definition  of  it.  Another,  and  a  ra- 
pidly increasing  class,  have  given  up  Calvinian  pre- 
destination, and,  in  all  but  the  name,  have  in  that  point 
come  on  to  the  Methodist  ground.     There  is  still 


114  CALVINISTIC  CONTKOVERSY. 

another  class,  who  are  evidently  not  Arminians,  but 
still  deny  the  correctness  of  my  definition  of  their  doc- 
trine. They  say  they  are  not  chargeable  with  such 
a  doctrine,  either  directly  or  by  inference.  In  the  next 
number,  therefore,  an  attempt  will  be  made  to  sustain 
from  their  own  positions  this  definition. 


NUMBER  VII. 

PREDESTINATION    CONTINUED. 

From  my  last  number  the  reader  will  perceive  that 
there  are  two  classes  of  Calvinists,  so  called,  with 
whom  we  have  no  need  to  contend  ;  with  one  there  is 
no  cause  of  controversy,  because  they  have  given  up 
the  doctrine  ;  and  with  the  other  there  is  no  need  of 
controversy,  because  their  plain  manner  of  avowing 
the  doctrine,  logical  consequences  and  all,  renders 
any  arguments  against  it  unnecessary.  Its  character 
A  is  too  monstrous  and  abhorrent  to  gain  much  credit. 
There  is  yet  another  and  a  larger  portion,  who,  while 
they  reject"  the  views  both  of  the  New-Haven  divines 
and  of  the  old-school  and  Hopkinsian  Calvinists  are 
nevertheless  strongly  opposed  to  the  issue  proposed  in 
this  sermon.  They  deny,  as  appears  from  some 
public  intimations  and  many  private  statements,  that 
I  have  given  a  fair  representation  of  the  doctrine. 
They  appear  to  manifest  as  much  horror  as  an  Armi- 
nian  would  to  the  idea,  that  "  the  responsible  acts  of 
moral  agents  are  definitely  fixed  and  efiiciently  pro- 
duced by  the  purpose  and  decree  of  God," — that  these 
acts  "  are  the  result  of  an  overruling  and  controlling 
power," — "  that  the  will,  in  all  its  operations,  is  govern- 
ed and  irresistibly  controlled  by  some  secret  impulse, 
some  fixed  and  all-controlling  arrangement."    Hence, 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY.  115 

I  suppose,  if  it  can  be  proved  that  these  are  the 
genuine  characteristics  of  Calvinism,  the  system  itself 
will,  by  many  at  least,  be  given  up.  At  any  rate, 
since  the  exception  is  taken  to  the  definition  of  the 
doctrine,  it  may  be  presumed,  by  sustaining  this,  we 
sustain  our  own  cause  and  refute  the  opposite.  The 
present  inquiry  then  is,  Are  these,  in  very  deed,  the 
characteristics  of  absolute  predestination?  I  shall 
endeavour  to  maintain  that  they  are.  Let  the  intel- 
ligent and  the  candid  judge. 

1.  It  may  be  urged,  as  a  consideration  of  no  small 
weight  in  this  question,  that  all  but  predestinarians,  as 
well  as  many  predestinarians  themselves,  have  enter- 
tained these  views  of  the  doctrine.  With  respect  to 
antipredestinarians,  I  know  of  no  exception  ;  all  unite 
in  charging  these  things,  directly  or  by  consequence, 
upon  the  Calvin istic  system.  And  will  Calvinists  say 
this  is  owing  to  prejudice  and  to  a  want  of  under- 
standing the  subject  ?  With  what  kind  of  modesty 
will  they  assume  that  they  are  free  from  blinding 
prejudice  in  favour  of  their  own  doctrine,  and  all  the 
world  beside  are  prejudiced  against  it?  It  may  be 
asserted,  as  it  often  has  been,  that  these  doctrines  are 
humbling  to  the  pride  of  the  natural  heart,  and  this  is 
the  ground  of  the  universal  opposition  to  them  !  But 
this  is  a  gratuitous  assumption  of  what  ought  first  to 
be  proved,  viz.,  that  these  doctrines  are  true ;  and  it 
also  exhibits  a  most  reprehensible  spirit  of  pride  and 
Pharisaism — a  spirit  that  says  to  a  brother,  "  Stand 
by,  for  I  am  holier  than  thou  !"  There  have  doubt- 
less been  as  many  eminently  pious  Arminians  as  Cal- 
vinists, and  how  is  it,  that  these  men  have  never  had 
this  doctrine  so  explained  to  them  as  to  be  able  to  see 
it  free  from  these  charges  ? 


116  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

But  not  only  antipredestinarians  have  universally 
entertained  these  opinions  of  this  doctrine  ;  even  the 
advocates  themselves  have,  in  a  great  variety  of 
instances,  acknowledged  the  same.  Mention  has 
before  been  made  (in  the  sermon)  of  the  opposition 
raised  against  free  will,  by  the  Calvinists  of  Mr.  Wes- 
ley's day — and  quotations  have  also  been  given  from  the 
early  Calvinistic  authors,  showing  how  decidedly  they 
held  that  God  moved  the  will  to  sin,  by  a  direct 
positive  influence.  To  these  we  may  add  all  the 
Hopkinsians  of  modern  days,  who  openly  acknowledge 
"that  those  scriptures  which  teach  that  God  has 
decreed  the  sinful  acts  of  men  do  imply  that  he  is  the 
efficient  cause  of  moral  evil."  (See  review  of  my 
sermon  in  the  Boston  Telegraph.)  It  should  not  be 
forgotten,  moreover,  that  the  New-Haven  divines,  who 
have  studied  Calvinism  all  their  lives,  with  the  best 
opportunities  for  understanding  it,  inform  us  that  the 
view  of  Calvinism  which  makes  sin  preferable  to 
holiness  in  its  stead  is  unanswerably  exposed  to  all 
the  objections  brought  against  it  in  the  sermon.  It  is 
known,  too,  that  most  of  the  Methodists  in  New-Eng- 
land, and  many  elsewhere,  were  educated  predes- 
tinarians ;  but  have  revolted  from  the  traditions  of 
their  fathers  for  the  very  reason  that  Calvinism  is 
what  we  have  described  it  to  be.  The  Universalists 
are  almost  all  predestinarians,  and  they  understand 
that  this  doctrine  necessarily  implies  the  divine  effi- 
ciency in  producing  sin  ;  and  hence  they  very  consist- 
ently infer  that  God  is  not  angry  with  them,  and  will 
not  punish  them  for  being  controlled  by  his  decrees. 

Suppose  now  an  intelligent  person,  who  knew 
nothing  of  the  arguments  on  either  side,  should  be 
informed  of  what  is  true  in  this  case,  viz.,  that  a  great 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  117 

portion,  probably  on  the  whole  by  far  the  greatest 
portion,  ofpredestinarians,  and  aZ^  antipredestinarians, 
understood  the  doctrine  of  absolute  predestination  as 
involving  directly,  or  by  consequence,  certain  speci- 
fied principles ;  but  that  a  portion  of  predestinarians 
persisted  in  denying  that  these  principles  were  involved 
in  the  doctrine  ;  and  suppose  this  intelligent  person 
should  be  informed  of  the  additional  facts,  that  these 
predestinarians  had  tried  all  their  skill  at  explanation 
and  argument,  generation  after  generation,  but  had 
never  succeeded  in  the  view  of  the  other  party  in 
freeing  their  doctrine  from  these  charges,  nay,  that 
they  had  so  far  failed  of  it,  that  many,  very  many 
were  leaving  them,  and  adopting  the  antipredestinarian 
system,  for  the  very  reason  that  they  could  not  rid  the 
system  in  which  they  had  been  educated  from  those 
principles  which  were  charged  upon  it — and  that  even 
among  those  who  had  adhered  to  the  old  doctrine  there 
were  new  modes  of  explaining  and  stating  the  theory 
constantly  springing  up,  until  finally  numbers  of  them 
had  explained  themselves  entirely  out  of  the  doctrine^ 
and  into  the  opposite  sentiment ;  and  that  very  many 
others,  by  adhering  to  the  doctrine,  and  following  out 
the  principles  involved  in  it,  had  come  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  there  was  "  no  hell" — no  judgment,  and  "no 
angry  God:"  suppose,  I  say,  this  intelligent  man 
should  be  informed  of  all  these  facts,  and  then  be  re- 
quested to  presume  whether  or  not  these  contested 
principles  were  involved  in  the  doctrine — what  would 
be  his  judgment?  I  need  not  answer  this  question. 
There  is  strong  presumptive  evidence  that  the  views 
in  the  sermon  are  correct. 

2.  Another  reason  for  believing  that  this  doctrine 
is  what  we  have  defined  it  to  be,  and  involves  in  it 


118  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

the  principles  we  have  charged  upon  it,  is  drawn  from 
the  terms  in  which  it  is  expressed,  and  the  manner 
and  circumstances  in  which  these  terms  are  used. 
The  more  common  terms  are  decree,  predestination, 
foreordinatioUj  predetermination,  piirjiose,  (^c. — 
These  are  all  authoritative  terms,  and  carry  with  them 
the  idea  of  absolute  sovereignty.  But,  lest  they  should 
not  be  sufficiently  strong  and  imperious,  they  are,  in 
this  theory,  generally  accompanied  by  some  strong 
qualifying  terms^  such  as  sovereign  decree,  eternal 
and  immutable  purposes  ;  and,  without  any  reference 
to  other  bearings,  the  whole  is  placed  on  the  ground 
of  God's  absolute  and  sovereign  will.  These  sovereign 
decrees,  however,  are  not  proposed  to  his  subjects  in 
the  light  of  a  law  enforced  by  suitable  sanctions,  and 
liable  to  be  broken.  They  are  the  secret  counsels  of 
his  own  will ;  and  so  far  from  being  law,  that  often, 
perhaps  oftener  than  otherwise,  in  the  moral  world, 
they  are  in  direct  opposition  to  the  precepts  of  the  law. 
When  these  decrees  come  in  contact  with  the  law  they 
supersede  it.  Laws  may  sometimes  be  broken  ;  the 
decrees,  never.  God  commits  his  law  to  subordinate 
moral  agents,  who  may  break  or  keep  them  ;  but  his 
decrees  he  executes  himself  It  should  also  be  under- 
stood that  the  advocates  of  this  theory,  in  their  late 
controversy  with  Dr.  Taylor,  strenuously  maintain 
that  sin,  wherever  it  occurs,  is  preferable  to  holiness 
in  its  stead,  and  is  the  necessary  means  of  the 
greatest  good.  The  idea  that  God,  foreseeing  what 
moral  agents  would  do,  under  all  possible  circum- 
stances, so  ordered  his  ivorks  as  to  take  up  and 
incorporate  into  his  plan  the  foreseen  volitions  of 
moral  agents,  and  thus  constitute  a  grand  whole,  as 
perfect    as    any  system    which    involves    a    moral 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  119 

government  could  be,  they  discard  as  rank  Armi- 
nianism.  Now  is  it  possible  that  decrees  Uke  these, 
concealed  in  the  eternal  mind  of  Him  that  conceived 
them — dependant  solely  on  almighty  power  to  execute 
them,  not  modified  by  subordinate  agencies,  but  made 
to  control  these  agencies  with  absolute  and  arbitrary 
sway  ;  can  it  be  possible^  I  say,  that  such  decrees  do 
not  efficiently  control  and  actuate  the  human  will  ? 
Must  not  He  who,  in  this  manner,  forms  and  executes 
the  general  plan,  also  form  and  execute  all  its  parts  ? 
Must  not  He  who  gives  the  first  impulse  to  this  conca- 
tenation of  events,  linked  together  by  his  eternal  pur- 
poses, follow  up  the  whole  with  his  continued  and 
direct  agency,  and  carry  on  this  work  in  every  mind 
and  through  every  emotion  ?  Most  assuredly  he  must. 
His  is,  undoubtedly,  according  to  this  doctrine,  that 
operative,  controlling,  and  propelling  energy  that 

"Lives  through  all  life,  extends  through  all  extent, 
Acts  undivided,  operates  unspent." 

And  that  we  may  be  sure  not  to  misrepresent  the  Cai- 
vinists  on  this  subject,  let  them  speak  for  themselves. 
Dr.  Hill,  who  is  a  modern,  and  is  reputed  a  moderate 
Calvinist,  says  : — "  The  divine  decree  is  the  determi 
nation  to  produce  the  universe,  that  is,  the  whole  se- 
ries of  beings  and  events  that  was  then  future."  Dr. 
ChalmCTS,  who  has  been  esteemed  so  moderate  a  Cal 
vinist,  that  some  had  doubted  whether  he  had  not 
given  up  absolute  predestination  altogether,  comes  out 
in  his  sermon  on  predestination  in  the  following  lan- 
guage : — "  Every  step  of  every  individual  character, 
receives  as  determinate  a  character  from  the  hand  of 
God,  as  every  mile  of  a  planet's  orbit,  or  every  gust 
of  wind,  or  every  wave  of  the  sea,  or  every  particle  of 


120  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

flying  dust,  or  every  rivulet  of  flowing  water.  This 
power  of  God  knows  no  exceptions :  it  is  absolute  and 
unlimited.  And  while  it  embraces  the  vast,  it  carries 
its  resistless  influence  to  all  the  minute  and  unnoticed 
diversities  of  existence.  It  reigns  and  operates  through 
all  the  secrecies  of  the  inner  man.  It  gives  birth  to 
every  purpose,  it  gives  impulse  to  every  desire,  it  gives 
shape  and  colour  to  every  conception.  It  wields  an 
entire  ascendency  over  every  attribute  of  the  mind ; 
and  the  will,  and  the  fancy,  and  the  understanding, 
with  all  the  countless  variety  of  their  hidden  and 
fugitive  operations,  are  submitted  to  it.  It  gives  move- 
ment and  direction  through  every  one  point  of  our 
pilgrimage.  At  no  moment  of  time  does  it  abandon 
us.  It  follows  us  to  the  hour  of  death,  and  it  carries 
us  to  our  place,  and  to  our  everlasting  destiny  in  the 
region  beyond  it ! ! !"  These  quotations  need  no  com- 
ment ;  if  they  do  not  come  up  to  all  we  have  ever 
charged  upon  this  doctrine,  there  is  no  definite  mean- 
ing in  words. 

But  we  have  another  authority  on  this  subject, 
which  bears  more  directly  on  the  Calvinists  of  this 
country,  the  Assembly's  Catechism.  Dr.  Fitch,  who 
is  certainly  as  well  qualified  to  judge  in  this  matter  as 
another  man,  informs  us,  through  the  medium  of  the. 
Christian  Spectator,  that  "the  articlesof  faith  prepared 
by  that  body  (the  assembly  of  English  anyScotch 
divines  at  Westminster)  are  considered  as  expressing 
essentially  the  views  not  only  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  this  country,  but  also  of  the  orthodox  Con- 
gregational Churches  of  New-England."  It  is  known, 
also,  that  the  Shorter  Catechism  has  been  almost  uni- 
versally used  by  them  in  their  families,  and  in  the 
religious  instruction  of  their  children.     Here  then  we 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  12± 

have  a  standard  of  faith,  which  all  the  classes,  I  sup- 
pose, will  acknowledge,— and  what  saith  it?  After 
stating  that  the  decrees  of  God  are  his  eternal  purpose, 
according  to  the  counsel  of  his  own  will,  whereby, 
for  his  own  glory,  he  hath  foreordained  whatsoever 
Cometh  to^pass,  it  goes  on  to  say,  "  God  execiiteth  his 
decrees  in  the  works  of  creation  and  providence ;"  and 
then,  for  farther  explanation,  adds  :  "  God's  works  of 
providence  are  his  most  holy,  wise,  and  powerful, 
preserving  and  governing  all  his  creatures  and  all 
their  actions."  This  is  certainly  an  awkward  sen- 
fence,  if  I  may  be  allowed  to  say  this  of  the  produc- 
tions of  an  assembly  which  has  been  characterized  as 
a  paragon  of  excellence  in  erudition  and  theology. 
Its  meaning,  however,  according  to  grammar  and 
logic,  must  be,  that  by  his  acts  of  providence  God,  in 
a  most  holy,  wise,  and  powerful  manner,  preserves 
and  governs  both  all  his  creatures  and  all  their  ac- 
tions. But  as  it  seems  to  be  a  solecism  to  talk  about 
'preserving  actions,  we  will  understand  jjreservitig  to 
belong  to  creatures,  and  governing  to  actions,  and 
then  it  will  be  thus :  God  powerfully  preserves  all  his 
creatures,  and  powerfully  governs  all  their  actions : 
and  it  is  in  this  way  he  executes  his  decrees.  There 
are  evidently  two  methods  of  governing.  That  con- 
trol which  is  made  up  of  legal  precepts,  and  sanctions, 
and  retributions,  is  called  a  government ;  not  that  all 
the  subjects  of  such  a  government  always  obey  its 
ordinances,  but  if  they  violate  them,  they  are  subjected 
to  punishment.  This  is  evidently  not  the  kind  of 
government  that  the  assembly  contemplated.  It  was 
a  government  by  which  God  executed  his  decrees ; 
but,  as  we  have  seen,  his  decrees  are  not  his  laws,  for 
they  are  frequently  in  direct  opposition  to  his  laws 

6 


122  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

Decree  and  law  are  not  only  frequently  opposed,  in 
respect  to  the  moral  action  demanded  by  each,  but 
even  where  those  demands  are  coincident  they  differ 
greatly  in  the  manner  and  certainty  of  their  fuhil- 
ment.  Of  course  government,  by  executing  decrees, 
is  another  thing  altogether  from  government  by  exe- 
cuting laws.  But  there  is  another  kind  of  govern- 
ment. It  is  that  efficient  control  of  a  superior,  by 
which  a  being  or  an  act  is  made  to  he  lohat  it  is,  in 
opposition  to  iwnexistence,  or  a  different  existence. 
Now  this  appears  to  be  precisely  the  kind  of  govern- 
ment alluded  to  when  it  is  said,  "God  executes  his 
decrees  by  powerful ly^-orerni??^  all  the  actions  of  his 
creatures.-'  That  is,  he  efficiently  produces  and  con- 
trols all  the  responsible  volitions,  good  and  bad,  of  the 
moral  universe.  And  what  is  this,  but  affirming  all 
that  the  sermon  has  affirmed  on  this  subject  ?  If  any 
one  is  disposed  to  deny  that  this  is  a  fair  exposition 
of  the  Catechism,  let  him  reflect  that,  as  he  cannot 
pretend  ihdX  goverriment  here  means  a  legal  adminis' 
tration,  it  will  be  incumbent  on  him  to  show  what 
other  fair  construction  can  be  put  upon  it  than  the 
one  given  above  ;  to  show  how  God  can  execute  a 
secret  decree,  by  his  own  powerful  act,  in  any  other 
W9.y  than  in  the  one  already  explained. 

In  corroboration  of  the  foregoing  views  it  should 
also  be  borne  in  mind,  that  the  Calvinists  uniformly 
use  these  very  same  terms,  decree,  2Jredestination,  (fee, 
in  the  same  sense,  in  reference  to  all  events.  They 
say  God's  decrees  extend  to  all  events,  physical  and 
moral,  good  and  evil,  by  which  they  must  mean,  if 
they  mean  any  thing  intelligible,  that  his  predestina- 
tion bears  the  same  relation  to  all  events.  If  then  his 
decree  of  election  embraces  the  means  to  the  accom- 


CALVINISTIC  CONTROVERSY.  123 

plishment  of  the  end,  so  also  must  his  decree  of  repro- 
bation. If  his  decree  of  election  requires  for  its  ac- 
complishment an  efficient  operation,  so  also  does  his 
decree  of  reprobation.  If  divine  agency  is  directly  and 
efficiently  requisite  to  produce  a  good  volition,  it  must 
follow  that  it  is  in  th«  same  sense  requisite  to  produce 
a  sinful  volition. 

To  tell  us  a  thousand  times,  without  any  distinction 
or  discrimination,  that  all  things  are  equally  the  re- 
sult of  the  divine  decree,  and  then  tell  us  that  the  rela- 
tion between  God's  decree  and  sin  is  essentially  differ- 
ent from  the  relation  existing  between  his  decree  and 
holiness,  would  certainly  be  a  very  singular  and  un- 
warrantable use  of  language.  How  then,  I  inquire, 
does  God  produce  holy  volitions  ?  Why,  say  the  Cal- 
vinists,  by  a  direct,  positive,  and  efficient  influence 
upon  the  will,  and  in  proof  quote,  ''  Thy  people  shall 
be  willing  in  the  day  of  thy  power."  Well,  how,  I  ask 
again,  does  God  execute  his  decrees  respecting  unholy 
volitions  ?  Consistency  requires  the  same  reply.  But, 
says  the  Calvinist,  he  need  not  exert  the  same  influence 
to  produce  unholy  volitions,  because  it  is  in  accord- 
ance with  the  nature  of  sinful  men  to  sin.  Indeed  ! 
and  is  not  this  nature  the  result  of  a  decree  ?  It  would 
seem  God  approaches  his  work  of  executing  his  decree 
respecting  sin,  either  more  reluctantly  or  with  greater 
difficulty,  so  that  it  requires  two  steps  to  execute 
this,  and  only  one  the  other.  It  is  in  both  cases,  how- 
ever, equally  his  work.  This  will  be  seen  more  clearly 
if  we  turn  our  attention  to  the  first  sin  ;  for  it  is  cer- 
tainly as  much  against  a  perfectly  holy  nature  to  com- 
mit sin,  as  it  is  against  an  unholy  nature  to  have  a 
holy  volition.  Hence  the  one  as  much  requires  a 
direct  and  positive  influence  as  the  other,  and  therefore 


124  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

the  psissage  in  the  110th  Psahii,  if  it  apphes  at  all  to 
a  positive  divine  influence  in  changing  the  will,  must 
have  a  much  more  extensive  meaning  than  has  been 
generally  supposed.  It  should  be  paraphrased  thus : 
^'  Not  only  shall  thy  elect  people,  who  are  yet  in  their 
sins,  and  therefore  not  yet  in  a  strict  and  proper  sense 
thine,  be  made  willing  to  become  holy  in  the  day  that 
thou  dost  efficiently  change  their  will ;  but  also  thy 
angels  and  thy  first  created  human  pair,  who  were 
before  their  fall  more  truly  thine,  as  they  were  made 
perfectly  holy,  shall  be  made  willing  to  become  un- 
holy in  the  day  thou  dost  efficiently  change  their  wills 
from  submission  to  rebellion."  For  if  divine  efficiency 
is  necessary  to  make  a  naturally  perverse  will  holy, 
it  is  also  necessary  to  make  a  naturally  holy  will 
perverse. 

I  am  aware  that  we  may  be  met  here  by  this  reply, 
that  although  God  does  efficiently  control  the  will,  still 
it  is  in  a  way  suited  to  the  nature  of  mind,  and  consis- 
tent with  free  agency,  because  he  operates  upon  the 
mind  through  the  influence  of  moral  suasion,  or  by 
the  power  of  motives.  To  this  it  may  be  answered, 
that  the  Calvinists  generally  condemn  Dr.  Taylor's 
views  of  conversion,  because  they  suspect  him  of  hold- 
mg  that  motives  alone  convert  the  sinner ;  whereas 
they  deem  it  necessary  that  the  Holy  Spirit  should 
act  directly  upon  the  will ;  if  so,  then,  as  I  have  shown 
above,  it  is  also  necessary  that  there  should  be  a  direct 
divine  influence  upon  the  will  of  a  holy  being  to 
make  him  sinful.  And  this  more  especially,  since 
both  changes  are  decreed,  and  both  stand  in  the  same 
relation  to  the  divine  purpose.  But  this  doctrine  of 
motives  leads  me  to  another  argument,  viz., 

3.  That  the  view  I  have  taken  of  predestination  is 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  125 

correct,  appears  evident  from  the  Calvinistic  doctrine 
of  motives,  especially  when  this  doctrine  is  viewed  in 
connection  with  the  Calvinistic  theory  of  depravity. 
The  doctrine  of  motives  I -understand  to  be  this, 
that  "  the  power  of  volition  is  never  excited,  nor  can 
be,  except  in  the  presence  and  from  the  excitement  of 
motives,"  (see  "Views  in  Theology,")  and  that  the 
mind  must  necessarily  be  swayed  by  the  strongest  mo- 
tive, or  by  what  appears  to  the  mind  to  be  the  greatest 
good.     Dr.  Edwards,  following  Leibnitz,  incorporated 
this  doctrine  of  philosophical  necessity  with  the  Cal- 
vinistic theology.     In  this  he  has  been  followed  by  a 
great  portion,   I  believe,   of  the   Calvinistic  clergy. 
Without  stopping  here  to  attempt  a  refutation  of  this 
theory,  my  present  object  is  to  show  that  it  necessarily 
fastens  upon  Calvinism  the  charges  brought  against 
it,  and  sustains  the  definition  that  has  been  given  to 
predestination.     For  since  God  creates  both  the  mind 
and  the  motives,  and  brings  them  together  for  the 
express  purjjose  that  the  former  should  be  swayed  by 
the  latter,  it  follows  conclusively  that  God  efficiently 
controls  the  will,  and  produces  all  its  volitions.     And 
this  is  according  to  express  Calvinistic  teaching : — 
"G(5d,"   says   the  author  of  "Views   in   Theology," 
already  quoted,  "  God  is  the  determiner  of  perceptions, 
and  perceptions  are  the  determiners  of  choices."   The 
inference  therefore  is  plain  and  unavoidable,    God 
is  the  determiner  of  choices.     The  plea  that  God  does 
not  produce  volitions,  by  a  direct  influence,  but  indi- 
rectly, through  second  causes,  avails  nothing.     Al- 
though there  should  be-  ten,  or  ten  thousand  interme- 
diate links,  if  they  are  all  arranged  by  our  Creator 
in  such  order  as  to  produce  the  intellectual  vibration 
intended,  whenever  he  pleases  to  give  the  impulse,  what 


136  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

is  the  difference  ?  In  point  of  efficient  agency,  none 
at  all.  Nor  yet  will  it  alter  the  case  to  say  that  "this 
effect  is  produced  by  God  through  such  a  medium  as 
is  suited  to  the  nature  of  the  mind,  and  therefore  it 
cannot  be  said  that  God  does  any  violence  to  the  will, 
or  to  man's  free  agency."  God  created  the  mind,  ^nd 
the  means  that  were  to  influence  it.  He  gave  to  mind 
its  nature,  and  to  motives  their  influence  and  arrange- 
ment, for  this  very  'purpose.  Hence,  unless  man  can 
unmake  himself,  he  is  hound  by  the  latvofhis  nature 
to  act  in  all  cases  as  he  does.  Why  talk  about  a/ree 
agency  when  it  is  such  an  agency  as  must,  by  the 
constitution  of  God,  lead  inevitably  to  sin  and  ruin  ! 
That  old,  and,  in  the  premises,  foolish  reply,  that  man 
could  do  differently  if  he  chose,  does  not  help  the  case. 
It  is  only  saying  the  nature  of  man  is  such  that  it  is 
governed  by  his  perceptions,  and  since  "  God  is  the 
determiner  of  perceptions,  and  perceptions  the  deter- 
miners of  choices,"  whenever  God  pleases  to  alter  the 
perceptions  so  as  thereby  to  change  the  choice,  then, 
and  not  before,  man  can  do  differently.  According 
to  this  doctrine  is  it  possible,  according  to  the  very 
nature  of  mind,  for  the  choice  to  be  different  until  the 
perceptions  are  changed  ?  And  can  the  perceptions 
be  changed  until  God  changes  them?  To  answer 
either  or  both  of  these  questions  in  the  affirmative, 
would  be  to  give  up  the  doctrine  of  motives.  To  an- 
swer them  in  the  negative,  would  be  to  entail  upon 
the  doctrine  all  that  I  have  charged  upon  it.  The 
advocates  of  the  theory  may  have  their  choice.  Nor 
yet,  again,  will  it  destroy  the  force  of  this  argument, 
to  say  "  man  has  an  unholy  nature  ;  and  this  is  the 
reason  why  the  motives  presented  influence  him  to 
sin ;  therefore  the  guilt  is  chargeable  upon  himself, 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  127 

and  God  is  clear."  For,  in  the  first  place,  this  would 
not  account  for  the  first  unholy  volitions  of  holy  angels 
and  the  first  human  pair. 

This  argument  presupposes  that,  but  for  the  con- 
sideration of  man's  unholy  nature,  the  charge  against 
the  Calvinistic  theory  would  be  valid.  And  inas- 
much as  here  are  cases  in  which  the  argument  obvi- 
ously affords  no  relief  to  the  system,  it  follows  that  in 
these  cases,  at  least,  God  is  the  efficient  and  procuring 
cause  of  unholy  volitions — and  therefore  the  charges 
against  predestination  are  established.  But  by  a  little 
farther  attention  we  shall  see  that  this  argument 
affords  as  little  relief  to  the  system  in  the  case  of  man 
as  he  now  is.  For  this  first  sin,  which  was  itself  the 
necessary  result  of  the  divine  arrangement  and  of 
positive  divine  influence,  threw,  if  possible,  a  stronger 
and  a  more  dire  necessity  over  all  the  coming  gene- 
rations of  men.  For  this  act  entailed  upon  man  a 
depraved  heart.  Hence  this  corrupt  nature  came 
upon  man  without  his  knowledge  or  agency.  We 
trace  it  back  then,  thus  : — Man's  love  of  sin  was  pro- 
duced by  the  unholy  choice  of  the  first  pair — that 
choice  was  produced  by  perceptions — these  percep- 
tions were  produced  by  motives — and  these  motives 
were  brought  by  God  to  bear  upon  the  minds  which 
he  had  made  for  this  very  purpose — therefore  God, 
by  design,  and  because  he  purposed  it,  produced  our 
corrupt  nature  ;  and  then,  for  the  express  purpose  of 
leading  that  unholy  nature  to  put  forth  unholy  voli- 
tions, he  brings  those  motives  to  bear  upon  our  minds 
which,  from  the  unavoidable  nature  of  those  minds, 
7niLst  produce  the  sin  designed.  It  is  thus  that, 
according  to  his  theory,  our  Creator  binds  the  human 
mind  by  the  strong  cords  of  depravity  with  one  hand, 


1S8  CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY. 

and  with  the  other  lashes  it,  by  the  maddening 
scourge  of  motives,  into  all  the  excitement  of  unholy- 
delirium  ;  and  then,  for  his  own  glory,  consigns  the 
sinner  over  to  the  prison-house  of  wo  !  !  Turn  this 
system,  then,  as  you  will,  you  find  this  doctrine  of 
predestination  binding  the  human  mind,  and  efficiently 
producing  all  the  volitions  of  the  moral  universe. 
The  strong  arm  of  Jehovah  not  more  directly  and 
irresistibly  moves  and  binds  the  planets  in  their  orbits, 
than  it  moves  and  controls,  in  the  mysterious  circle 
of  his  eternal  decrees,  "  all  the  actions  of  all  his 
creatures." 

I  know,  as  a  closing  argument,  it  is  urged,  what- 
ever may  be  our  inferences,  we  all  know  that  we  are 
free,  and  that  we  are  responsible,  because  loe  are  con- 
scious of  it.  This  is  a  most  singular  course  of  rea- 
soning, and  seems  to  have  been  adopted  to  reconcile 
contradictions.  If  this  doctrine  be  true,  I  am  not  sure 
that  I  am  free,  and  that  I  am  responsible  merely 
J^ecause  I  feel  that  I  am.  I  am  at  least  quite  as  con- 
scious that  I  ought  not  to  be  held  responsible  for 
what  is  unavoidable,  as  T  am  that  I  am  possessed  of 
moral  liberty.  Break  down  my  consciousness  in  one 
case,  and  you  prepare  the  way  for  me  to  suspect  it  of 
fallacy  in  another.  And  if  I  must  give  up  my  con- 
sciousness, between  two  alternatives  I  will  choose 
that  which  will  not  involve  the  government  of  God  in 
injustice,  and  myriads  of  intelligent  beings  in  unavoid- 
able perdition.  Hence,  with  Dr.  Edwards'  premises, 
which  he  holds  in  common  with  Lord  Kaimes,  I 
would  come  to  his  lordship's  conclusion,  viz.,  that 
God  never  intended  to  hold  men  responsible,  and  the 
universal  feeling  of  responsibility  is  a  kind  of  pious 
fraud — a  salutary  delusion,  imposed  as  a  check  and 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  129 

restraint  upon  man  here,  but  to  be  followed  by  no 
unpleasant  consequences  either  here  or  hereafter. 
But  this  would  be  charging  our  Creator  with  both 
deception  and  folly — deception  in  the  delusive  con- 
sciousness of  responsibiUty,  and  folly  in  suifering 
Lord  Kaimes  and  others  to  disclose  the  secret,  and 
frustrate  the  divine  purpose  !  This  cannot  be.  The 
charge  of  deception  and  of  fallacy,  therefore,  must  be 
rolled  back  from  consciousness  and  from  the  throne 
of  God  upon  the  doctrine  of  predestination.  And  if 
the  reaction  should  crush  the  theory  for  ever,  it  would 
doubtless  be  a  blessing  to  the  church  and  to  the  world. 

To  conclude.  For  the  reasons  given,  I  must  still 
maintain  that  the  charges  contained  in  the  sermon 
against  that  modification  of  Calvinism  I  am  now 
opposing  are  just ;  and  the  definition  assumed  is 
correct.  If  the  advocates  of  the  system  can  clear 
themselves,  or  their  doctrine,  let  it  be  done.  If  not, 
let  one  of  two  courses  be  pursued — either  let  the 
system  be  abandoned,  or  let  us  have  it  as  it  is. 

I  have  dwelt  the  longer  on  this  subject,  because  I 
am  weary,  and  I  believe  we  all  are,  of  hearing  the 
oft-repeated  complaint,  "  You  misrepresent  us  !" 
"  You  mistake  our  doctrine  !" 

In  the  next  number,  by  the  leave  of  Providence, 
the  nature  of  human  agency,  and  the  ground  of 
human  responsibility,  will  be  examined. 


NUMBER  VIII. 

MORAL    AGENCY    AND    ACCOUNTABILITY. 

By  what  has  been  said  on  the  theory  of  Calvinistic 
predestination,  it  will  be  seen,!  think,  that  this  system 

6^ 


130  CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY. 

involves  such  necessity  of  moral  action  as  is  incom- 
patible  with  free  agency.  It  is  possible,  I  grant,  to 
give  to  the  terms  will,  liberty^  free  agency^  such  a 
definition  as  will  make  these  terms,  thus  defitied^ 
compatible  with  the  other  peculiarities  of  the  Cal- 
vinistic  system.  Both  parties  agree  that  man  is  a 
free  moral  agent;  both  maintain  that  he  is  respon- 
sible ;  but  we  maintain  that  what  the  Calvinists  call 
free  moral  agency  is  not  such  in  fact  as  is  commonly 
understood  by  the  term,  nor  such  as  is  requisite  to 
make  man  accountable.  Here,  therefore,  we  are  again 
thrown  back  upon  our  definitions,  as  the  starting 
point  of  argument.  What  is  that  power,  or  property, 
or  faculty  of  the  mind,  which  constitutes  man  a  free 
moral  agent  ?  It  is  the  poiver  of  choice^  connected 
with  liberty  to  choose  either  good  or  evil.  Both  the 
power  and  liberty  to  choose  either  good  or  evil  are 
requisite  to  constitute  the  free  agency  of  a  probationer. 
It  has  been  contended  that  choice,  though  from  the 
condition  of  the  moral  agent  it  must  of  necessity  be 
exclusively  on  one  side,  is  nevertheless  free  ;  since  it 
implies  a  voluntary  preference  of  the  mind.  Hence  it 
is  contended  that  the  fallen  and  the  holy  angels,  glori- 
fied and  lost  human  spirits,  though  some  of  these  are 
confined  in  an  impeccable  state,  and  the  others  have  a 
perpetual  and  invincible  enmity  to  good,  are  neverthe- 
less free  agents.  With  respect  to  the  free  agency  of 
these  beings,  a  question  might  be  started,  whether 
it  is  such  as  renders  them  responsible  for  their  pre- 
sent  actSj  the  decision  of  which  miglit  have  some 
bearing  on  the  subject  under  investigation ;  but  not 
such  bearing  as  would  make  it  important  to  discuss 
it  here.  If  they  are  responsible  for  their  present  acts, 
it  must  be  on  account  of  a  former  probation,  which 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY.  131 

by  sin  they  have  judicially  forfeited.  Or  if  any  one 
thinks  otherwise,  and  is  disposed  to  maintain  that  a 
being  who  is  not,  and  7iever  was  so  circumstanced  as 
to  render  the  choice  of  good  possible  to  him,  is  never- 
theless a  free  moral  ageiif,  in  any  such  sense  as  renders 
Iiim  accountable;  with  such  a  sentiment  at  present  I 
have  no  controversy.  Indeed,  such  an  opinion  is  so 
violent  an  outrage  upon  all  the  acknowledged  prin- 
ciples of  justice,  that  to  controvert  it  would  be  a  work 
of  little  profit. 

It  is  certain  that  the  moral  standing  of  those  angels 
and  men  whose  states  are  now  unalterably  fixed, 
differs  materially  from  their  probationary  state  ;  and 
this  difference  renders  their  moral  agency  unsuited 
to  illustrate  the  agency  of  beings  who  are  on  proba- 
tion. Man,  in  this  life,  is  in  a  state  of  trial ;  good 
and  evil  are  presented  before  him  as  objects  of  choice  ; 
and  upon  this  choice  are  suspended  eternal  con- 
sequences of  happiness  or  misery.  Of  a  being  thus 
circumstanced,  it  is  not  enough  to  say  he  is  free  to 
choose  as  he  does,  unless  you  can  say,  also,  he  is 
equally  free  to  make  an  opposite  choice.  Hence,  in 
defining  the  free  agency  of  man,  as  a  probationer,  we 
say,  as  above,  that  it  implies  a  power  of  choice,  with 
full  liberty  to  choose  either  good  or  evil. 

The  foregoing  definition,  at  first  view,  seems  suffi- 
cient for  all  practical  purposes,  and  so  indeed  it  would 
have  been,  if  a  speculative  philosophy  had  not  thrown 
it  into  the  alembic  of  metaphysics  for  decomposition 
and  analysis.  It  is  doubtful  whether  this  process  has 
subserved  the  cause  of  truth  ,•  nay,  it  is  certain,  I 
think,  that  it  has  produced  many  perplexing  refine-^ 
ments  and  speculations  that  have  greatly  aided  the 
cause  of  error.     Into  these  abstrusities,  therefore,  it 


132  CA-LVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

seems  necessary  to  follow  this  question,  to  try,  if 
possible,  to  draw  out  and  combine  the  elements  of 
truth. 

Having  defined  free  agency  to  mean  the  potoer  of 
choice^  (fee,  it  is  asked  again,  What  is  this  poiver  of 
choice  ?  It  is  probable  that  the  different  answers 
given  to  this  question  constitute  the  fundamental 
differences  between  Calvinists  and  Arminians.  To 
the  above  question  some,  like  the  reply  of  the  Jews  to 
Christ,  have  said,  "  We  cannot  tell."  And  they  give 
this  evasive  reply  perhaps  for  a  reason  similar  to  that 
which  influenced  the  Jews  ;  they  fear  that  a  definite 
answer  will  involve  themselves  or  their  theory  in 
difficulty.  This  is  a  very  convenient  way  to  avoid 
responsibility,  but  not  indicative  of  much  fairness,  or 
confidence  in  their  cause.  When  men  have  involved 
their  system  in  apparent  contradictions,  it  will  hardly 
satisfy  the  candid  inquirer  after  truth  to  see  them 
start  aside  from  the  very  point  that  is  to  give  charac- 
ter to  their  whole  system.  We  are  told  by  men  who 
reason  uj)on  foreknowledge,  (fee,  that  "God  hath 
decreed  whatsoever  comes  to  pass  ;"  and  then  we  are 
told  that  all  men  are  free,  and  they  enter  into  a  great 
deal  of  metaphysical  speculation  about  foreknowledge, 
the  nature  of  voluntary  action,  (fee,  to  prove  these 
positions;  but  when  they  are  pressed  upon  this  point, 
"How  can  you  reconcile  with  free  agency  that  kind 
of  divine  efficiency  necessary  to  secure  the  execution 
of  the  decrees,  and  that  kind  of  dependance  of  moral 
agents  which  this  efficiency  implies?"  the  reply  is, 
"  We  cannot  tell — the  how  in  the  case  we  cannot 
explain."  This  evasion  might  be  allowable,  perhaps, 
in  either  of  the  two  following  cases:— 1.  If  the  ap- 
parent discrepance  of  the   two   positions  grew  out 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY.  133 

of  what  is  mysterious^  and  not  of  what  is  palpably 
coritradictory ;   or,  2.    If  both  propositions  were  so 
clearly  proved^  that  it  would  do  greater  violence  to 
our   reasons,   and   be   a   greater    outrage   upon    all 
acknowledged  principles  of  belief,  to  disbelieve  either 
of  them,  than  it  would  to  believe  them  with  all  their 
apparent   contradictions.     With   respect  to  the  first 
alternq.tive,  it  appears  to  me,  and  doubtless  it  would 
so  appear  to  all  whose  prejudices  did  not  mislead  the 
mind,  that  the  want  of  apparent  agreement  between 
the  two  is  not  for  lack  of  light  in  the  case,  but  from 
the   natural   incongruity  of  the    things    compared. 
When  you  say,  "  God  executes  his  decrees  by  effi- 
ciently controlling  the  will  of  man,"  and  say  also, 
"  The  mind  of  man  is  free,"  both  these  propositions 
are  clear;  there  is  nothing  mysterious  about  them. 
But  you  say,  perhaps,  "  The  mystery  is  in  the  want 
of  light  to  see  the  agreement  of  the  two  ;  we  cannot 
see  their  agreement,  but  we  should  not  therefore  infer 
that  they  do  not  agree."     I  answer,  What  is  light,  in 
this  case,  but  a  clear  conception  of  the  propositions  ? 
This  we  have,  and  we  see  that  they  are,  in  their 
nature^  incompatible ;  and  the  more  light  you  can 
pour  upon  this  subject,  the  more  clearly  must  this 
incompatibility  appear.      If  you  say  that  "  perhaps 
neither  you  nor  I  fully  understand  the  meaning  of 
these  propositions ;"  then  I  reply.  We  have  7io  busi- 
ness to  use  them.  "  Who  is  this  that  darkens  counsel 
by  words  without  knowledge  ?"     And  this  is  what  I 
have  already  complained  of;  men  will  reason  them- 
selves  into   propositions  which  they  call  doctrinal 
facts,  but  which  seem  to  the  eye  of  common  sense  to 
have  all  the  characteristics  of  contradictions ;   and 
when  we  urge  these  contradictions  in  objection,  the 


134  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

objection  is  not  allowed  to  have  any  weight,  because 
we  do  not  fully  understand  the  propositions.  So  then 
the  propositions  must  be  received,  though  lue  do  not 
understand  them!  and  though,  as  far  as  we  do 
understand  them,  they  are  obviously  incompatible  ! ! 
Is  this  the  way  to  gain  knowledge,  and  to  make  truth 
triumphant?  How  much  more  consistent  to  say, 
iSince  it  is  evident  the  mind  is  free,  and  since  the 
doctrine  of  predestination  is  apparently  incompatible 
with  that  freedom;  therefore  this  doctrine  should  be 
exploded ! 

Or  will  this  second  alternative  be  resorted  to  ?  Will 
it  be  said  that  both  of  these  propositions  are  so  clearly 
proved,  that  to  deny  them  would  do  greater  violence 
to  our  reasons  and  the  principles  of  belief,  than  to 
acknowledge  them,  notwithstanding  their  apparent 
incongruity  ?  Let  us  examine  them.  Of  one  of  them 
we  cannot  doubt,  unless  we  doubt  all  primary  truths, 
viz..  That  the  human  mind  is  free.  It  is  presumed, 
if  the  question  come  to  this,  that  they  must  either  give 
up  human  liberty  or  the  dogma  of  predestination, 
candid  Calvinists  themselves  would  not  hesitate ; 
they  would  say  the  former  must  stand,  whatever  be- 
comes of  the  latter.  If  I  am  correct  here,  it  follows 
that,  predestinarians  themselves  being  judges,  the 
doctrine  of  predestination  is  not  so  clear  as  some  other 
moral  truths.  But  is  there  any  thing  clearer  than 
that  man  ought  not  to  be  held  accountable  for  what 
is  unavoidable  ?  that  he  ought  not  to  be  held  to  an- 
swer for  volitions  that  are  efficiently  controlled  by  a 
superior?  To  me  this  is  as  clear  as  consciousness 
itself  can  make  it,  and  I  think  it  must  be  to  mankind 
in  general.  If  I  am  correct,  then  we  come  to  the 
conclusion  at  once,  that  to  believe  in  the  compatibility 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  135 

of  predestination  with  human  Hberty  and  accountabi- 
Hty  does  more  violence  to  the  laws  of  belief  than  it 
would  to  discard  predestination.  Whatever,  there- 
fore, may  seem  to  be  favourable  to  this  doctrine 
should  be  sacrificed  to  a  stronger  claim  upon  our 
belief  in  another  direction. 

But,  that  the  argument  may  be  set  in  as  strong  light 
as  possible,  let  the  evidence  of  predestination  be  ad- 
duced. What  is  it  ?  It  is  not  consciousness,  certainly ; 
and  it  is  almost  as  clear  that  it  is  not  moral  demon- 
stration by  a  course  of  reasoning.  The  most,  I  believe, 
that  has  ever  been  said,  in  the  Avay  of  moral  demon- 
stration, has  been  in  an  argument  founded  on  fore- 
knowledge, which  argument,  it  is  supposed  by  the 
author,  is  fairly  disposed  of  in  the  sermon  on  predesti- 
nation, by  reasoning  which  has  not,  to  his  knowledge, 
ever  been  refuted.  A  refutation  has  been  attempted, 
I  grant,  by  some  of  the  reviewers  of  the  sermon  ;  but 
the  only  apparent  success  that  attended  those  attempts 
was,  as  we  have  already  seen,  in  consequence  of  their 
taking  the  very  ground  of  the  sermon,  and  building 
the  decrees  of  God  upon  a  prior  view  and  knowledge 
of  all  possible  contingencies.  If  consciousness  and 
reasoning  are  taken  away  from  this  doctrine,  it  has 
nothing  left  to  stand  upon  but  testimony.  And  no 
testimony  but  divine  will  here  be  of  any  authority ; 
and  does  revelation  prove  this  doctrine  ?  In  the  ser- 
mon on  predestination  it  was  stated  that  '•  there  was 
not  a  single  passage  in  the  Bible  which  teaches 
directly  that  God  hath  foreordained  whatsoever  comes 
to  pass ;"  and  it  is  not  known  to  the  writer  that 
among  the  different  reviews  of  the  sermon  it  has  even 
been  attempted  to  show  that  the  statement  was  incor- 
rect.     But  if  a  solitary  passage  could   have   been 


136  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

adduced,  should  Ave  not  have  heard  of  it?  The  evi- 
dence from  Scripture,  then,  if  there  is  any,  is  indirect, 
and  merely  by  inference.  And  even  this  indirect 
testimony  is  far  from  being  the  best  of  its  kind; 
so,  at  least,  a  great  portion  of  believers  in  revelation 
think. 

Now,  candid  reader,  if  you  have  carefully  followed 
the  chain  of  thought  thus  far,  let  me  ask  you  to  pause 
and  propound  for  yOurself,  and  honestly  answer  the 
following  question :  "  Is  there  so  much  evidence  in 
favour  of  predestination,  that  I  should  do  more  vio- 
lence to  my  own  reason,  and  the  laws  of  belief,  by 
rejecting  it,  than  I  should  by  believing  that  this  doc- 
trine is  compatible  with  free  agency  and  accountabi- 
lity?" Indeed,  Calvinists  themselves  have  so  felt  the 
force  of  these  difficulties,  when  the  terms  predestination 
and  free  will  have  been  understood  in  their  common 
and  obvious  sense,  that  they  have  attempted  a  variety 
of  explanations  of  these  terms,  to  do  away,  if  possible, 
the  apparent  discrepance.  These  attempts  have  been 
the  principal  cause  of  those  changes  and  modifications 
in  the  Calvinistic  system  alluded  to  in  a  former  num- 
ber. The  various  explanations  and  definitions  that 
have  been  given  to  foreordination  have  already  been 
noticed.  We  have  seen  how  every  effort  failed  of 
affording  any  relief  to  the  system,  until  we  came  down 
to  the  last ;  I  mean  that  of  the  New-Haven  divines. 
This  new  theory  does  indeed  avoid  the  difficulty,  but 
avoids  it  only  by  giving  up  the  doctrine  !  Any  thing 
short  of  this  amounts  to  nothing ;  it  stands  forth  still 
the  "  absolute  decree^''  fixed  as  fate,  and  fixing,  strong 
as  fate,  all  the  acts  of  subordinate  intelligences.  Any 
real  modification  of  it  is  a  virtual  renunciation,  and  a 
substitution  in  its  stead  of  the  public  and  consistent 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  137 

decree  of  Heaven,  "He  that  believeth  shall  be  saved  ; 
he  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned." 

Not  succeeding,  as  was  hoped,  in  such  a* definition 
of  predestination  as  would  harmonize  the  opposing 
propositions,  repeated  trials  have  been  made  to  define 
and  explain  human  liberty  and  the  power  of  choice^ 
so  as  to  bend  these  into  a  coincidence  with  the  inflex- 
ible decree.  This  brings  us  back  to  the  inquiry  started 
above :  '•  What  is  this  power  of  choice  ?"  Now  as  this 
is  a  point  more  metaphysical  in  its  nature  than  the 
proposition  embracing  the  decrees,  so  there  is  more 
ground  for  laboured  argument  and  refined  speculation. 
Only  one  theory,  however,  needs  to  be  particularly 
noticed :- — 1.  Because  it  is  the  most  plausible  of  any 
other,  so  that,  if  this  will  not  bear  the  test,  it  is  pro- 
bable no  other  will ;  and,  2.  Because  this  is  the  theory 
which  is  now  pretty  generally,  and  perhaps  almost 
universally,  adopted  by  the  Calvinists ;  I  mean  the 
Calvinistic  doctrine  of  motives.  It  is  in  substance 
this :  the  power  of  choice  is  that  "power  which  the 
mind  has  of  acting  in  view  of  motives,  and  of  deciding 
according  to  the  strongest  motive.  The  strength  and 
direction  of  volition  are  always  in  accordance  with 
the  motive.  And  this  relation  between  mind  and 
motives  is  fixed  by  the  very  constitution  of  our  natures, 
so  that  it  may  be  said  there  is  a  constitutional  neces- 
sity that  the  mind  should  be  controlled  by  motives. 
These  motives  are  multitudinous  and  various.  All 
conceptions  and  perceptions  of  the  mind,  from  what- 
ever cause,  productive  of  pleasure  or  pain,  exciting 
emotions  of  love  or  aversion,  are  motives ;  or,  more 
properly,  perhaps,  the  causes  of  these  mental  states 
are  motives.  Between  these  motives  and  the  mind 
there  is  such  a  connection,  that  the  former  not  only 


138  CALVINISTIC  CONTROVERSY. 

excite,  but  control  the  latter^  in  all  its  volitions.  The 
nature  of  this  relation  is  of  course  beyond  the  limits 
of  humarf  investigation  :  all  we  can  say  is,  such  is  the 
nature  of  motives  and  of  mind.  Such  is  the  theory. 
The  arguments  by  which  it  is  defended  are  in  sub- 
stance the  following — experience  and  observation. 
We  are  conscious,  it  is  said,  of  acting  from  motives,  and 
it  is  universally  understood  that  others  also  act  from 
motives.  It  is  on  this  principle  that  we  govern  our- 
selves in  our  intercourse  with  men;  by  this  we  cal- 
culate with  moral  certainty,  in  many  instances,  what 
will  be  the  conduct  of  a  man  in  a  given  case ;  and 
upon  such  calculations  we  form  most  of  our  maxims 
and  rules  of  conduct  in  social  life :  nay,  it  is  said  a 
man  that  will  act  without  a  reason  must  be  insane — 
that,  on  this  ground,  whenever  a  man  acts  it  is,  com- 
mon to  inquire  what  induced  him  ?  what  motive  had 
he?  that  even  children,  at  a  very  early  age,  so  readily 
recognise  this  principle,  that  they  are  constantly 
inquiring.  Why  do  you  this  or  that?  Such  are  the 
strongest  arguments  by  which  this  theory  is  sustain- 
ed— arguments  too  strong,  it  is  supposed,  to  be  over- 
thrown. 

I  object  to  the  sovereign  control  of  the  mind  by  mo- 
tives. But,  m  offering  my  objections,  it  should  first 
be  observed  that  no  man,  in  his  senses,  it  is  presumed, 
will  deny  that  motives  have  an  important  influence  in 
determining  our  volitions.  Nor  is  it  necessary,  in  or- 
der to  oppose  the  doctrine  of  the  controlling  power  of 
motives,  to  deny  that  the  power  of  volition  may  have 
been  waked  up  to  action,  in  the  first  instance,  by  mo- 
tive influence,  or  that  the  mind  ever  after  may,  in  all 
its  volitions,  be  more  or  less  under  this  influence.  As 
these  are  points  which  do  not  materially  affect  the 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  139 

question  at  issue  between  us  and  the  Calvinitts,  they 
may  be  left  out  of  the  discussion  for  the  present.  The 
question  is  this — Has  the  mind  a  self-determining 
power,  by  which  it  can  spontaneously  decide,  inde- 
pendent of  the  control  of  motives,  or  is  the  mind  abso- 
lutely controlled  by  motives  ?  We  maintain  the  for- 
mer— our  opponents  the  latter.  By  estabhshing  our 
position,  we  disprove  theirs — by  disproving  theirs  we 
establish  ours — and  it  is  believed  that  theirs  can  be 
directly  disproved,  and  ours  directly  established ;  at 
least  so  far  as  we  can  hope  to  arrive  at  demonstration 
on  these  extremely  difficult  points. 

1.  My  first  objection  to  this  doctrine  of  motive  in- 
fluence is,  that  most  of  the  arguments  by  which  it  is 
defended  as  directly  and  certainly  prove  that  the 
divine  mind  is  subject  to  the  absolute  control  of  mo- 
tives as  that  human  minds  are.  It  is  argued,  that  to 
maintain  the  doctrine  of  spontaneous  volition,  inde- 
pendent of  the  cordrol  of  motives,  involves  the  absurdi- 
ty, that  "our  volitions  are  excited  without  Sfiiy intelli- 
gent reasons  whatever,  and  as  the  eifect,  consequently 
of  nothing  better  than  a  mere  brute  or  senseless  me- 
chanism." ( VieiDS  in  Theology,  p.  163.)  Now  if 
this  has  any  bearing  on  the  question,  it  relates  not  to 
human  mind  and  human  volition  merely,  but  to 
mind  in  general,  and  must  apply  to  the  divine  mind. 
The  same  may  be  said,  in  fact,  of  most  of  the  argu- 
ments that  are  brought  in  favour  of  this  doctrine. 
Calvinists  are  convinced  of  this — and  hence  this  also 
is  a  part  of  their  creed.  It  was  defended  by  Dr.  Ed- 
wards, and  is  thus  avowed  by  Professor  Upham,  in  his 
System  of  Mental  Philosophy.  Speaking  of  the  con- 
trol of  motives,  he  says,  "  Our  condition,  in  this  re- 
spect, seems  to  be  essentially  the  same  with  that  of  the 


140  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSV. 

supreme  Being  himself — he  is  inevitably  governed 
in  all  his  doings  by  what,  in  the  great  range  of  events, 
is  wisest  and  best."     (Yol.  ii,  p.   381.)      Thus  the 
divine  Being  is,  according  to  this  theory,  and  by  the 
express  showing  of  the  leading  advocates  of  the  theo- 
ry, ''  inevitably  "  made  a  subordinate  to  a  superior. 
It  is  believed  there  is  no  avoiding  this  conclusion ; 
and  what  then  ?     Why  then  the  doctrine  makes  God 
a  necessary  agent,  and  leads  to  atheism  !     It  is  near- 
ly, if  not  exactly,  the  same  as  the  old  heathen  doctrine 
of  fate.     The  ancient  heathens  supposed  that  Jupiter 
himself,  the  omnipotent  father  of  the  gods  and  men, 
must  yield  to  fate.    Modern  Christians  teach  that  there 
is  a  certain  fitness  of  things,  certain  constitutional  rela- 
tions, existing  independent  of  the  divine  will,  which 
God  himself  cannot  supersede,  but  to  which  he  must 
yield.     How  does  this  sink,  at  once,  both  the  natural 
and  moral  perfections  of  God  !     The  exercises  of  his 
wisdom  and  goodness  are  nothing  more  than  the  re- 
sult of  certain  fixed  and  irresistible  influences.    Fixed 
not  by  God  himself,  for  that  would  be  to  give  up  the 
doctrine  ;  for  in  that  case,  in  the  order  of  cause  and 
effect,  the  divine  mind  must  have  acted  without  con- 
trol of  motive,  if  this  law  of  motive  influence  did  not 
exist  until  the  divine  volition  willed  it  into  being  :  and 
if  he  could  once  act  independent  of  this  control,  he 
might  so  act  for  ever  ;  and  the  argument  built  on  the 
absurdity  of  volition,  without  an  intelligent  reason, 
would  be  contradicted.     But  if  that  argument  has  any 
weight,  it  fixes,  in  the  order  of  cause  and  effect,  a  para- 
mount influence  eternally  antecedent  to  the  exercise 
of  the  divine  mind,  and  controlling  that  mind  with 
irresistible  sway.     This  is  fate !     This  is  atheism ! 
Once  set  up  an  influence  that  controls  the  divine  mind, 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY..  141 

call  that  influence  what  you  will,  fitness  of  things — 
fate — energy  of  nature — or  necessary  relation^  and 
tliat  moment  you  make  God  a  subordinate ;  you  hurl 
him  from  his  throne  of  sovereignty,  and  make  him  the 
instrument  of  a  superior.  Of  what  use  is  such  a  Deity  ? 
Might  we  not  as  well  have  none  ?  Nay,  better,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  if  under  the  control  of  his  own  motive 
influence  he  is  led  to  create  beings  susceptible  of  suf- 
fering, and  fix  the  relations  of  those  beings  to  the  mo- 
tives around  them  such  that  by  a  law  of  their  nature 
they  are  "  inevitably  "  led  to  sin  and  endless  wo  !  Is 
it  to  be  wondered  at  that  many  Calvinists  have  be- 
come infidels  ?  This  doctrine  of  motives  is  the  very 
essence  of  the  system  of  Spinoza,  whose  deity  was  the 
energy  of  nature  !  The  supreme  controlling  power 
of  Dr.  Edwards  and  his  followers  is  the  energy  of  mo- 
tives^ which  exists  in  the  nature  of  things,  anterior  to 
the  will  of  God.  Can  any  one  point  out  any  essen- 
tial difference  between  the  two  systems  ? 

Such  are  tlie  objections  to  any  arguments  in  favour 
of  the  doctrine  that  motives  ''inevitably"  control  the 
volitions  of  intelligent  beings  in  general^  involving,  of 
course,  the  highest  intelligence.  But  if  any  are  dis- 
posed to  give  up  this  doctrine,  as  essential  to  intelli- 
gent volition  in  general,  and  choose  to  maintain  it 
only  in  respect  to  the  volitions  of  some  particular  in- 
telligent beings :  then  they  must  give  up  all  the 
strongest  of  their  arguments.  If  God  is  free  from  this 
control^  they  must  acknowledge  also,  or  give  some  rea- 
son for  their  dissent,  that  he  may,  if  he  chooses,  make 
and  sustain  subordinate  intelligences  having  the  same 
freedom  from  this  control ;  and  if  they  acknowledge  that 
there  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  the  case  that  renders 
this  an  impossibility,  then  they  must  show,  if  they 


142  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

can,  that,  though  God  anight  constitute  behigs  other- 
wise, he  has  so  constituted  man  as  to  render  him  inca- 
pable of  choice,  except  %ohe7i  and  as  motives  direct, 
by  an  inevitable  influence.  But  in  attempting  this 
they  must  meet  other  difficulties  in  their  course,  which, 
it  is  believed,  will  greatly  embarrass  the  system.  These 
difficulties,  however,  together  with  the  arguments 
which  I  design  to  advance  directly  in  favour  of  the 
opposite  view  must  be  reserved  for  another  number. 


NUMBER  IX. 

MORAL  AGENCY  AND   ACCOUNTABILITY,  CONTINUED. 

Another  argument  against  the  Calvinistic  doc- 
trine of  motives  is,  that  it  leads  to  materialism.  The 
doctrine,  it  will  be  recollected,  is  this  : — When^  the 
mind  is  brought  into  connection  with  objects  of  choice 
it  is  inevitably  led,  by  a  law  of  its  nature,  to  the  selec- 
tion of  one  rather  than  of  the  other,  unless  there  is  a 
perfect  equality  between  them :  in  which  case  I  sup- 
pose, of  course,  the  mind  must  remain  in  equilibrium; 
for  if  it  moves  only  by  the  influence  of  motives,  and 
to  the  same  degree  and  in  the  same  direction  with 
motive  influence,  of  course  when  it  is  equally  attracted 
in  opposite  directions  it  must  be  at  rest !  It  is  on  this 
ground  that  Leibnitz  maintained  that  God  could  not 
make  two  particles  of  matter  in  all  respects  alike  ; 
because,  in  that  case,  being  "  inevitably"  governed  by 
motives  in  his  decisions,  he  could  not  determine  where 
to  place  them,  both  having  the  same  influence  on  his 
mind  for  a  location  in  the  same  place  !  The  same 
writer  represents  this  motive  influence,  also,  as  fre- 
quently imperceptible,  but  not  the  less  effectual,  and 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  143 

not   the  less  voluntary !   and  to  illustrate  it   makes 
the   following   comparison : — "  It  is  as  if  a  needle, 
touched  with  a  loadstone,  were  sensible  of  and  pleased 
with  its  turning  to  the  north,  for  it  would  believe  that 
it  turned  itself  independent  of  any  other  cause,  not 
perceiving  the  insensible  motions   of  the   magnetic 
power."     This  statement  of  Leibnitz,  who  had  paid 
great  attention  to  this  philosophical  theory,  is  im- 
portant in  several  respects.     It  is,  in  the  first  place,  an 
acknowledgment  that   consciousness  is  against  the 
doctrine ;  and  it  is  also  a  concession  that  the  mind  is 
imposed  iq?oii,  in  this  matter,  by  the  Creator.     But 
with  respect  to  the  argument,  that  this  doctrine  leads 
to  materialism,  this  quotation  is  important,  because  it 
shows  that  one  of  the  most  philosophical^  if  not  one 
of  the  most  evangelical  of  the  defenders  of  this  doc- 
trine, considered  the  law  of  motive  influence  similar 
to  the  law  of  magnetic  attraction,  differing  only  in 
being  accompanied   by  sensation   and  a  deceptive 
consciousness.     And  what  says  its  great  evangelical 
champion  in  this  country.  Dr.  Edwards  ?     He  com- 
pares our  volitions  to  the  vibrations  of  a  scale  beam, 
the  different  ends  of  which  are  respectively  elevated 
or  depressed  as  the  opposite  weights  may  chance  to 
vary.  What  is  this  but  teaching  that  motions  of  mind 
are  governed  by  the  same  fixed  laws  as  those  of  mat- 
ter, and  that  volitions  are  perfectly  mechanical  states 
of  mind?  What  the  advocates  of  this  doctrine  charge 
on  the  opposite  theory  belongs,  by  their  own  showing', 
to  their  own  system.     They^  not  we,  make  choices 
the  result  of  animal  instinct,  or  senseless  mechanism. 
I  know  Professor  Stuart,  in  his  late  exposition  of  the 
Romans,  seems  to  reprobate  these  comparisons  ;  and- 
while  he  contends,  as  I  should  think,  "^s  strenuously 


144  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

as  Dr.  Edwards,  for  a  complete  and  efficient  control 
of  the  divine  Being  over  all  our  volitions,  he  appears 
to  think  that  there  is  a  great  difference  between  the 
laws  of  intellectual  and  material  action.  So,  indeed, 
do  we  think.  But  we  think  that  diiference  consists 
in  the  mind's  being  free  from  that  control  for  which 
the  professor  contends ;  and  we  believe  when  he  con- 
tends for  that  control  in  the  volitions  of  the  mind,  he 
contends  for  that  which,  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
entirely  destroys  the  other  part  of  his  hypothesis,  viz., 
that  the  operations  of  the  mind  are  free,  and  essentially 
different  from  mechanical  motion  or  the  laws  of  attrac- 
tive influence  in  the  material  world.  If  the  attractive 
power  of  motives  over  the  mind  is  any  thing  diiferent 
from  the  law  of  gravitation  or  magnetic  attraction, 
what  is  that  difference  ?  Should  any  one  say,  I  can- 
not tell  ;  I  ask  then.  How  does  he  know  but  it  is  that 
very  'power  for  which  Arminians  contend?  Most 
probably  it  is  that  power.  Or  will  it  be  said  the 
difference  between  motive  influence  and  gravity  is 
conscioysness  ?  I  reply,  Consciousness  is  no  part 
of  the  relation  between  motives  and  the  power  of 
choice.  I  see  not  indeed  how  it  affects  that  relation 
at  all.  And  this  the  comparison  of  Leibnitz,  already 
alluded  to,  clearly  illustrates.  Look  at  that  flowing 
stream ;  it  hastens  on  most  freely,  and  by  the  law 
of  its  own  nature,  down  the  gentle  declivities  or  more 
precipitous  slopes  of  its  meandering  channel.  Sup- 
pose now  that  Omnipotence  should  impart  conscious- 
ness to  the  particles  of  the  continuous  current:  it 
would  then  wake  up  to  perceive  the  action  and  feel 
the  pleasure  of  its  own  delightful  motions.  It  would 
roll  on  still  by  the  law  of  its  own  nature,  and  would 
feel  that  it  was  free  to  move  according  to  its  o\vn 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  145 

inclination  and  voluntary  tendency,  for  its  will  would 
of  course  be  in  the  direction  of  its  motive^  or,  in  other 
phrase,  its  gravitating  influence.  But  could  it  turn 
its  course  and  roll  back  its  waters  to  their  fountains  ? 
It  could  if  it  was  so  inclined.  But  its  present  incli- 
nation  is  toward  the  bottom  of  the  valley  or  the  bosom 
of  the  ocean,  and  thither,  by  the  relation  that  exists 
between  its  particles  and  the  gravitating  influence 
of  the  earth,  it  rolls  on  ivith  the  utmost  freedom^ 
though  with  the  utter  impossibility  of  changing  its 
own  course,  without  an  inversion  of  the  gravitating 
power.  Let  the  hand  of  Omnipotence  invert  the 
slope  of  the  mountain,  and  lo  !  with  the  same  freedom 
these  very  waters  roll  back  again  to  their  original 
fountains  !  Thus  it  is  with  the  human  mind.  It  is 
conscious  of  being  free  to  move  in  the  direction  of  its 
inclinations,  but  require  it  to  turn  its  course  and 
move  in  the  current  of  its  volitions,  in  an  opposite 
direction,  and  it  would  be  utterly  impossible,  until 
Omnipotence  himself  should  change  the  motive 
influence.  "  God  is  the  determiner  oi  perceptions j 
and  perceptions  are  the  determiners  of  choices." 

We  see,  therefore,  that  this  doctrine  oi  motive  in- 
fluence leads  to  materialism,  for  it  makes  the  analogy 
between  mental  and  material  action  so  complete  that  it 
destroys  all  idea  of  intellectual  power.  Philosophi- 
cally speaking,  there  is  no  power  in  the  laws  of  na- 
ture. What  we  express  by  the  potoer  of  attraction,  or 
repulsion,  or  decomposition,  is  nothing  more  than  the 
uniformity  of  the  divine  agency.  Does  the  earth 
attract  elevated  bodies  to  its  surface  ?  This  is  not  an 
energy  inherent  in  nature ;  it  is  the  God  of  nature 
acting  by  a  uniform  law.  This  is  all  that  any  infelli- 
gent  man  can  mean  by  the  power  o%  nature.     We, 


146  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

however,  use  the  word  power  in  an  accommodated 
sense  in  these  cases,  but  always,  I  think,  in  connection 
with  that  portion  of  matter  that  appears  to  act,  and 
not  that  which  is  acted  upon.  The  magnet,  we  say, 
has  power  to  attract  iron,  because  iron  is  attracted 
toward  the  magnet,  and  not  the  magnet  toward  the 
iron.  The  antecedent,  or  that  which  takes  the  lead 
in  the  motion,  is  more  properly  said  to  have  the  power, 
or  is  the  efficient  cause.  If  then  we  allow  of  the  use 
of  the  term  power  at  all,  to  express  the  relation  of  cause 
and  effect,  growing  out  of  a  philosophical  constitu- 
tion of  things,  the  term  should  be  applied  to  the  ante- 
cedent, and  not  to  the  consequent.  In  the  case  before 
us,  mental  action  is  not  the  cause  of  the  motive,  but 
the  motive  is  the  cause  of  the  mental  action  :  there- 
fore we  should  say  motives  have  poicer  to  act  upon 
the  mind,  and  the  mind  has  a  susceptibility  of  being 
acted  upon.  Dr.  Re  id  has  well  observed,  that  a  power 
to  be  acted  upon  is  no  power,  or  "  it  is  a  poivej^less 
power,^^  which  is  philosophically  absurd.  Therefore 
we  coma  to  the  conclusion  that  the  mind  has  no  povjer 
of  choice,  but  has  a  susceptibility  oi  being  drawn  into 
•fx.  state  called  volition  by  the  power  of  motives.  It 
will  avail  nothing,  as  I  conceive,  to  say  that  there  is 
evidently  a  difference  between  the  susceptibility  of 
the  mind  in  this  case,  and  the  susceptibility  of  matter 
in  other  cases,  unless  it  be  shown  what  that  difference 
is:  for  when  that  difference  is  pointed  out,  it  will 
doubtless  be  found  to  be  what  is  in  direct  opposition 
to  the  motive  theory.  It  is  the  misfortune  of  the  Cal- 
vinistic  system  that  it  often  has  to  assume  positions  to 
keep  itself  in  countenance,  which  positions  themselves 
are  a  virtual  abandonment  of  the  system.  So  the 
New-Haven  dh^ines  have  done  to  support  predestina- 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  147 

tion,  and  to  this  all  Calvinists  are  driven  in  their 
attempts  to  reconcile  free  will,  or  the  power  of  choice, 
with  their  doctrine  of  motives,  dependance,  &c. 

We  may  be  told  in  the  case  before  us,  that  "  when 
the  mind  is  acted  upon  it  is  then  excited  to  action." 
But  how  excited  to  action  ?  Is  the  action  any  stronger 
than  the  motive  influence  ?  Is  it  carried  beyond  this 
influence?  or  in  a  different  direction?  To  answer 
any  one  of  these  questions  in  the  aflirmative  is  to  give 
up  the  theory  ;  but  to  answer  them  in  the  negative  is 
to  attribute  to  the  mind  nothing  more  than  the  inertia 
of  matter.  The  motives  are  (under  God)  the  agentj 
the  mind  is  the  passive  object,  and  the  volition  is  the 
effect.  Can  any  one  say  then,  on  this  theory,  that  the 
mind  has  the  power  of  choice  ?  It  has  no  power,  in 
the  first  place,  because  its  volitions  are  the  result  of  phi- 
losophical necessity ;  and  it  has  no  power,  secondly, 
because  it  is  not  the  cause  of  its  own  volitions,  but 
in  these  volitions  it  is  the  passive  subject  of  foreign  in- 
fluences. Now,  so  far  as  moral  action  is  concerned, 
how  does  this  differ  from  materialism?  It  is  true 
mental  action  differs  from  material  action  in  some  as- 
sociated circumstances, — it  is  accompanied  by  con- 
sciousness ;  but  as  consciousness  of  itself  cannot  give 
accountability,  and  as  it  gains  nothing  in  this  respect 
by  being  associhted  with  such  kind  of  mental  action 
as  results  from  philosophical  necessity,  it  appears  plain 
that  man  is  not  accountable  ;  and,  if  not  accountable, 
it  is  more  than  probable  that  he  has  no  future  exist 
ence,  and  thus  again  we  are  driven  to  materialism 
and  to  deism,  if  not  to  atheism. 

That  man  is  not  accountable  upon  the  principle 
we  are  opposing,  might  have  been  made  a  distinct 
argument;  but  I  have  connected  it  with  the  argu* 


148  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

ment  that  this  doctrine  leads  to  materialism,  because 
they  imply  each  other.  If  materialism  is  true  we  are 
not  accountable,  and  if  we  are  not  accountable 
materialism  is  probably  true ;  and  both  are  true,  as 
I  conceive,  if  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  motives  is 
true. 

It  may,  however,  be  urged  by  the  advocates  of  this 
theory,  that  the  mind  is  not  wholly  passive,  because 
we  are  conscious  of  putting  forth  a  mental  energy  and 
making  a  responsible  volition ;  that  I  am  ready  to 
grant,  but  then  our  consciousness  is  a  fallacy  if  this 
system  be  true  ;  and  on  the  contrary,  if  consciousness 
be  true,  this  system  is  false.  I  believe  no  one  who 
pays  attention  to  his  own  mind  will  doubt  of  having 
this  consciousness.  But  does  that  prove  the  truth 
of  this  theory  ?  It  is  one  thing  to  be  conscious  of 
having  this  energy  of  mind  and  responsible  volition, 
and  another  to  be  conscious  that  the  theory  in  ques- 
tion is  true ;  indeed,  this  consciousness  destroys  the 
theory.  ^ 

Should  it  be  urged,  in  opposition  to  the  alleged  ten- 
dency of  this  system  to  materialism,  that  different 
minds  are  not  uniformly  influenced  by  the  same 
motives,  nor  the  same  minds  at  different  times,  and 
therefore,  in  this  respect,  it  is  evident  that  the  laws 
of  mind  and  of  matter  differ ;  I  reply,  It  is  precisely  so 
with  matter ;  for  that  attracts  or  repels  according  to  its 
different  magnetic  or  electrical  states  :  or  should  it  be 
urged  that  mind  differs  from  matter,  and  shows  itself 
to  be  possessed  of  a  peculiar  energy,  because  it  has 
power  to  suspend  its  decisions,  to  review  the  subject,  to 
investigate,  (fee. ;  I  answer,  this  it  cannot  do  without 
a  motive  ;  and  this  it  must  do  if  the  motive  prepon- 
derate in  that  tiirection,  but  not  otherwise. 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY.  149 

To  have  a  proper  view  of  this  subject,  let  us  go 
back  to  the  first  perception.  Could  the  mind,  accord- 
ing to  this  doctrine,  act  otherwise  than  in  coincidence 
with  the  motive  influence  of  this  perception ;  or  cquld 
it  even  suspend  the  voUtion  this  influence  was  cal- 
culated to  produce,  until  a  second  and  more  powerful 
motive  was  introduced  ?  If  it  could,  then  this  doctrine 
is  false  ;  if  it  could  not,  then  the  mind,  like  matter  put 
in  motion,  must  move  on  invariably  in  the  same 
direction,  and  with  the  same  velocity  of  thought  for 
ever,  or  until  a  new  motive  should  counteract  the 
influence  of  the  former  !  This  is  emphatically  the 
vis  iiiertice  of  matter,  the  bare  statement  of  which 
seems  sufficient  to  overthrow  the  theory. 

Another  objection  to  this  doctrine  of  motives  is,  it 
leads  to  the  notion  of  regeneration  by  moral  suasion 
merely.  There  has  been  much  said  of  late  by  the 
various  writers  in  the  old  and  the  neto  school  on  this 
point.  The  new  school  are  charged  with  holding 
that  the  truth  alo7ie,  without  any  immediate  agency 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  converts  the  sinner.  This  is  con- 
sidered by  the  old  school  Calvinists  as  a  fatal  error. 
But  why  so?  If  motives  g-oveni  tho  mind  with 
absolute  sway,  all  you  ?ieecl  to  convert  a  sinner  is  to 
bring  a  motive  strong  enough  to  induce  him  to  choose 
God  as  his  chief  good,  and  he  is  converted.  Until 
you  do  this  there  is  no  conversion.  It  is  impossible 
for  the  Holy  Ghost  to  convert  a  sinner  in  any  other 
way  than  by  motives,  for  choice  of  good,  we  are  told, 
is  conversion  ;  there  is  no  choice  without  a  motive, 
and  the  strongest  motive  governs  choice  absolutely  ; 
therefore  motive  is  the  omnipotent  power  that  changes 
the^linner's  heart.  This  is  the  legitimate  result  of  the 
Calvinistic  premises.    We  have  more  than  once  had 


160  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

occasion  to  wonder  that  Calvinists  should  revolt  at 
the  result  of  their  own  doctrines ;  here  we  have 
another  instance  of  it ;  here  too  we  have  the  enigma 
of  "  natural  ahility^^  unriddled.  The  human  mind, 
by  the  constitution  of  its  nature,  has  the  power  of 
choosing  according  to  the  influence  of  the  strongest 
motive ;  and  therefore,  so  far  as  this  can  be  called  a 
power,  it  has  the  natural  power  to  convert  itself;  and 
this  is  the  reason  why  "  make  yon  a  new  hearf  is  the 
burden  of  almost  eVery  sermon  and  exhortation  in 
modern  preaching;  all  the  sinner  has  to  do  is  to 
choose,  in  view  of  motives,  and  he  is  converted.  And 
here,  too,  is  unravelled  that  other  mystery  which  we 
have  been  so  puzzled  to  understand,  viz.,  that  although 
all  possess  the  natural  power  to  convert  themselves, 
yet  no  man  ever  did  convert  himself  without  the 
special  interposition  of  the  divine  agency;  for,  observe, 
God  keeps  the  motives  in  his  own  hands ;  "  God  is 
the  determiner  of  perceptions,  and  perceptions  are  the 
determiners  of  choices  f  that  is,  of  conversions ;  for  to 
choose  in  a  particular  way,  is  to  be  converted.  When- 
ever, therefore,  he  is  disposed  to  let  the  sinner  convert 
himself,  according  to  his  natural  power  ;  that  is,  when 
he  is  disposed  to  overpower  the  mind  by  an  irresist- 
ible motive,  he  brings  the  motive  and  mind  in  con- 
tact, and  it  is  done.  Thus  the  sinner  has  as  much 
power  to  convert  himself  as  he  has  to  resolve  to  eat 
when  he  is  hungry ;  for  all  the  power  he  has  to  do 
either  is  a  susceptibility  of  being  operated  upon  and 
controlled  by  the  strongest  motive ;  and  thus  you  see, 
also,  that  God  converts  the  sinner,  because  he  sup- 
plies the  motive  that  influences  the  choice ;  and  here, 
too,  is  seen  the  occasion  for  misquoting  so  frequefitly 
and  misapplying  so  universally,  that  passage  in  the 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY.  161 

Psalms  : — "  [My]  people  shall  be  [made]  willing  in  the 
day  of  [my]  power."  That  is,  when  God  applies  the 
controlling  motive  to  influence  to  a  right  choice,  then 
shall  the  sinner,  by  a  law  of  his  nature,  become  willing 
to  he  converted.  Such  are  the  wonderful  philosophical 
discoveries  of  modern  theology  !  This  is  the  way  for 
man  to  convert  himself  by  natural  power,  and  this  is 
the  way  for  God  to  convert  him  without  the  aid  of 
snjier-xidXiuoX  power  !  Well  might  a  divine  of  this 
cast,  whom  I  heard  preach  not  long  since,  say  of  rege- 
neration. "  There  is  nothing  supernatural  or  mira- 
culous in  it."  For  surely  it  is  one  of  the  most 
natural  things  in  the  world,  according  to  this  theory, 
to  be  converted.  It  is  only  to  be  operated  upon  by  a 
motive,  according  to  the  law  of  his  natural  constitu- 
tion, and  the  man  is  converted. 

This  philosophy  of  Christian  experience  has  led 
modern  orthodoxy  to  the  very  borders  of  natural  reli^ 
gion.  Another  step,  and  we  can  do  without  a  Holy 
Ghost  or  a  divine  Saviour.  We  will  sit  dov/n  with 
the  philosopher  in  his  study  and  icork  out  a  religious 
experience,  as  philosophically  as  a  skilful  casuist  can 
solve  a  question  of  morals ;  we  will  show  the  rationale 
of  the  whole  process,  and  demonstrate  it  so  clearly 
that  infidels  shall  lose  all  their  objections  to  the  gospel, 
and  be  induced  to  '^  submit'^  to  God  with  scarcely  a 
change  of  theory.  Hereafter  let  no  man  say  that  the 
work  of  regeneration  is  a  mystery — that  in  this  work 
we  cannot  tell  whence  the  reofeneratino^  influence 
comes,  or  whither  it  goes ;  for  it  comes  through  the 
philosophical  channel  of  motive  influence,  by  which  it 
introduces  a  "governing  purpose"  into  the  mind,  and 
the  work  is  done.  Let  no  man  hereafter  say  that  his 
"  faith  stands  not  in  the  wisdom  of  man,  but  in  the 


152  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

power  of  God  ;"  or  "  if  any  man  would  be  wise  let 
him  become  a  fool  that  he  may  be  wise  ;"  or  "  the 
wisdom  of  man  is  foolishness  with  God ;"  for  lo,  the 
philosophy  of  regeneration  is  at  length  explained  !  and 
the  whole  secret  is  found  to  consist  in  the  philosophi- 
cal relation  between  motives  and  mind !  !  Can  any 
one  wonder,  after  this,  that  in  Geneva,  in  Germany, 
and  in  New-England,  Calvinism  has  finally  resulted 
in  Socinianism  ?  And  can  any  one  help  trembling 
for  a  large  portion  of  the  orthodox  churches  among  us 
at  the  present  day  ?  Grant  that  there  is  an  increase 
of  zeal,  a  greater  stir  among  the  people,  more  revivals, 
ifcc. ;  all  these,  with  a  good  foundation,  would  promise 
well  for  the  church ;  but  we  fear  there  is  a  worm  at 
the  root.  By  this  it  is  not  intended  to  insinuate  that 
the  work  is  ahvays  spurious  and  the  professed  conver- 
sions unsound  :  in  many  instances  it  is  undoubtedly 
the  reverse  of  this.  It  might  be  expected,  after  the 
people  had  been  lulled  for  a  long  time  under  the  para- 
lyzing opiates  of  old-fashioned  Calvinism,  that  this 
new  and  apparently  opposite  theory  should  rouse 
many  to  action.  "  I  had  been  taught,"  said  a  man 
not  far  from  this,  "  that  I  must  wait  God's  time  to  be 
converted,  and  I  waited  many  years  in  vain ;  but 
more  recently  I  have  been  instructed  that  I  might 
convert  myself;  I  set  about  the  work,  and  I  believe  it 
is  done !"  Now  this,  which  in  the  relation  borders 
upon  the  ludicrous,  might  have  been  a  genuine  con- 
version. His  new  views  might  only  have  been  suf- 
ficient to  arouse  him  to  a  co-operation  with  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  his  conversion  ;  and  this  may  have  been  the 
case  with  thousands.  In  their  practical  effects  two 
opposite  errors  may,  in  individual  cases,  neutralize 
each  other.     But  is  either  therefore  safe  ?     Will  the 


II 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  153 

general  effect  be  salutary?  Let  the  history  of  the 
church  speak ;  and  in  view  of  that  record  I  confess  I 
fear  for  our  common  Zion.  But  let  not  the  old  Cal- 
vinists  lay  this  blame  and  charge  this  danger  upon 
the  new  school ;  the  new  school  doctrine  is  a  legiti- 
mate scion  from  that  root  which  they  have  cultivated 
with  such  assiduity  and  care.  It  grows  out  of  the 
doctrine  of  motives,  it  springs  from  the  idea  of  the 
entire  dependance  of  the  human  mind  for  each  and 
all  its  volitions  upon  the  directing  influence  of  Omni- 
potence, whatever  may  be  the  theory  by  which  that 
influence  is  explained. 

Another  argument  in  opposition  to  this  doctrine  is 
found  in  the  consideration,  that  we  are  constantly 
liable  to  disappointment  in  most  of  our  calculations 
respecting  human  agents.  Though  we  may  judge 
something  of  what  will  be  the  conduct  of  men  in  given 
circumstances,  yet  our  calculations  are  very  far  from 
coming  up  to  mechanical  exactness.  Motives  have 
some  influence,  but  that  influence  is  very  variable  and 
uncertain.  Why  is  this  ?  It  is  not  so  in  matter  ;  the 
same  causes  will  produce  the  same  eflects  to  the  end  of 
time.  But  we  see  many  choose,  without  being  able  to 
give  what,  in  their  own  estimation,  is  a  valid  reason ; 
they  did  thus  because  they  chose  to  do  so  ;  they  act  in 
defiance  of  the  strongest  motives,  drawn  from  what- 
ever source.  We  see  the  greatest  possible  caprice  in 
the  volitions  of  men ;  we  see  their  minds  starting 
aside,  and  putting  on  the  greatest  possible  and  unac- 
countable mental  states,  in  a  way  and  form  that  baflies 
all  human  calculation,  and  will  for  ever  baffle  it.  A 
man  may  spend  all  his  life  in  trying  to  reduce  to 
uniformity  the  phenomena  of  human  volitions,  and 
thereby  to  fix,  in  an  unerring  code,  the  laws  that 

7* 


164  calvinistic  controversy. 

govern  them,  and  he  may  hand  his  labours  to  his 
successor,  and  so  on  to  the  end  of  time,  and,  after  all, 
that  living,  spontaneous,  thought-producing  essence 
which  we  call  the  human  soul,  will  slide  from  our 
grasp  and  elude  all  our  calculations.  If  this  consider- 
ation should  have  no  direct  weight  in  opposition  to 
the  theory  I  am  opposing,  it  will  at  least  show  the 
absurdity  of  defending  this  system  by  what  is  called 
the  known  regularity  and  uniform  •phenomena  of 
human  volitions.  To  talk  of  uniformity  here,  is  to 
talk  of,  to  say  the  least,  what  does  not  exist. 

In  the  examination  of  this  subject,  we  find  that  the 
arguments  in  favour  of  the  motive  theory  are  gene- 
rally of  the  negative  kind;  they  are  not  so  much 
direct  proofs  of  the  truth  of  the  theory,  as  they 
are  attempts  to  show  the  absurdity  of  denying  it. 
But  when  statements  of  this  kind  are  accompanied 
by  no  arguments,  they  need  only  be  met  by  a  denial. 
"We  are  conscious,"  say  the  theorists,  "of  being 
controlled  by  motives  :"  I  reply,  we  are  not  conscious 
of  this  control,  but  we  are  conscious  of  the  con- 
trary fact.  We  know,  indeed,  that  motives  have 
their  influence ;  but  \yq  know  also  that  the  mind  has 
an  influence  over  motives,  and  probably  a  greater 
influence  than  motives  have  over  it.  The  mind  is 
conscious,  too,  of  having  an  influence  over  itself,  and 
of  possessing  a  self-directing  energy,  a  spontaneous 
power,  and  its  consciousness  of  responsibility  is  predi- 
cated on  this  power  of  spontaneity.  Only  let  the  mind 
become  clearly  conscious  that  motives  beyond  its 
power  and  influence  have  an  irresistible  power  in 
controlling  its  decisions,  and  you  would  as  certainly 
remove  from  man  all  sense  of  responsibility,  as  in 


CALVINISTIC.  CONTROVERSY.  155 

those  cases  now,  where  the  spasmodic  motion  of  the 
muscle  is  not  the  result  of  the  will. 

It  is  said  again,  that  to  deny  this  control  "  involves 
the  absurdity  that  our  volitions  are  exerted  without 
any  intelligent  reasons,  and  are  the  result  of  a  brute 
or  senseless  mechanism."  It  appears  to  me,  however, 
that  a  system  which  represents  the  will  as  mechani- 
cally governed  by  motives,  as  weights  turn  the  scale- 
beam,  makes  man  a  machine  ;  while  the  theory  that 
gives  the  mind  a  spontaneous  power  and  energy  of  its 
own,  makes  him  what  he  is,  an  intelligent^  respon-  . 
sible  agent. 

Since,  then,  these  negative  arguments  in  favour  of 
the  theory  that  motives  control  the  mind,  are  asser- 
tions and  not  proofs  ;  and  since  the  theory  itself  leads 
to  fate^  to  atheism',  to  materialism,  to  conversion  by 
mere  ^noral-  suasion,  to  the  subversion  of  human 
liberty  and  moral  responsibility,  we  must  believe  the 
theory  false.  But  against  the  theory  of  the  spontane- 
ous power  of  the  mind,  none  of  these  objections  lie. 
It  accords  too  with  consciousness ;  and  is,  in  fact,  the 
only  theory  on  which  the  j-esponsibility  of  a  moral 
agent  can  be  predicated.  The  opposite  view  claims 
our  assent  to  two  incongruous  and  apparently  contra- 
dictory propositions,  between  which  there  is  not  only 
no  agreement,  but  an  evident  repugnancy.  This  is 
the  embarrassment  in  the  one  case,  and  it  is  fatal  to 
the  theory. 

If  there  are  embarrassments  in  the  other  case, — and 
what  theory  of  mind  or  matter  has  not  its  inexplica- 
JjIqs  ? — these  embarrassments  are  evidently  of  another 
kind  ;  it  is  not  the  want  of  light  to  see  how  two  anta- 
gonist principles  can  agree,  the  repugnancy  of  which 
must  be  the  more  apparent  as  light  increases,  but  it  is 


166  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

from  the  known  limits  to  human  knowledge.  The 
principal  embarrassment  to  the  theory  we  defend  is,  we 
cannot  understand  the  ma7iner  in  which  this  faculty 
of  the  mind  operates.  But  this  is  no  more  difficult 
than  to  understand  the  manner  in  which  other  facul- 
ties of  the  mind  operate.  To  make  this  last  statement 
clear,  the  reader  is  desired  to  recollect  that  the  mind 
is  not  divided  into  parts  and  members  like  the  body. 
When  we  talk  of  the  faculties  of  the  mind,  we  should 
understand  the  power  that  the  entire  mind  has  to  act 
in  this  or  that  way.  Thus  we  say  the  mind  has  the 
faculties  of  will  and  of  memory,  that  is,  the  mind,  as 
a  whole,  has  the  powers  of  choosing,  and  of  calling  up 
its  past  impressions.  Now  if  any  one  will  tell  me  hoio 
the  mind  remembers,  I  will  tell  him  how  it  wills ;  and 
I  have  the  same  right  to  ask  him  what  causes  the 
memory  to  remember,  as  he  has  to  ask  me  what 
causes  the  will  to  will.  In  both,  cases  it  may  be  said 
the  mind  remembers  and  loills  because  this  is  its 
nature— 6roc?  made  it  so.  When  you  analyze  until 
you  come  to  the  original  elements,  or  when  you  trace 
back  effects  until  you  come  to  first  principles,  you 
must  stop.  And  if  you  will  not  receive  these  first 
principles  because  you  cannot  explain  them  farther, 
then  indeed  you  must  turn  universal  skeptic.  I 
frankly  acknowledge  I  cannot  tell  how  the  mind  acts 
in  its  volitions.  And  let  it  be  understood  that  the 
motive  theory,  with  all  its  other  embarrassments,  has 
this  one  in  common  with  ours.  Can  its  advocates 
tell  me  how  motives  act  upon  the  mind  ?  True  philo- 
sophy is  an  anal^rsis  of  constituent  principles,  or  of 
causes  and  effects,  but  the  origin  of  these  relations 
and  combinations  is  resolvable  only  into  the  will  of 
the  Creator.     It  is  so,  because  God  hath  made  it  so. 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  157 

And  the  nature  of  these  relations  is  beyond  the  reach 
of  the  human  mind.  However  impatient  we  may  be 
at  these  restrictions,  they  are  Umits  beyond  which  we 
cannot  go ;  and  our  only  duty  in  the  case  is  sub- 
mission. 

I  am  aware,  however,  that  what  I  have  now  said 
may,  without  farther  explanation,  especially  when 
taken  in  connection  with  a  principle  of  philosophy 
already  recognised,  be  considered  as  an  important 
concession  to  my  opponents.  I  have  before  stated,  in 
substance,  that  in  the  material  world  there  is,  strictly 
speaking,  no  such  thing  as  power  ;  that  the  efficiency 
of  the  laws  of  nature  is,  in  fact,  the  divine  energy  ope- 
rating in  a  uniform  way.  "  Let  it  be  granted,"  a  Cal- 
vinist  might  say,  "  that  what  we  call  the  operation  of 
second  causes  is  universally  the  supreme  Intelligence 
operating  in  a  uniform  way,  and  it  is  all  we  ask  to 
defend  our  system.  Then  it  will  be  granted,  that  in 
each  volition  of  the  human  mind  the  operation  of  the 
will  is  nothing  more  than  the  energy  of  the  divine 
Mind  operating  in  a  uniform  way." 

To  this  I  reply,  Though  matter,  on  account  of  its 
inertia,  cannot  in  any  proper  sense  be  said  to  have 
power,  yet  the  same  is  not  true  of  mind.  If  any  one 
thinks  it  is,  then  the  supreme  Mind  itself  has  not 
power.  In  other  words,  as  both  matter  and  rtiind  are 
inert,  and  cannot  act  only  as  acted  upon,  there  is  no 
such  thing  as  power  in  the  universe  !  and  thus  we 
again  land  in  atheism.  But  if  mind  has  power,  as  all 
theists  must  grant,  then  the  human  mind  may  have 
power.  If  any  one  can  prove  that  it  is  impossible,  in 
the  nature  of  things,  for  the  supreme  Being  to  create 
and  sustain  subordinate  agents  with  a  spontaneous 
power  of  thought  and  moraraction  to  a  limited  extent, 


158  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

in  that  case  we  must  give  up  our  theory.  But  it  is 
presumed  no  one  can  prove  this,  or  will  even  attempt 
to  prove  it.  We  say  God  has  created  such  agents, 
and  that  they  act  in  their  responsible  volitions  un- 
controlled by  the  Creator,  either  directly  or  by  second 
causes.  .  We  are  expressly  told,  indeed,  that  God 
made  man  "  in  his  own  image ;"  his  moral  image 
doubtless.  Man,  then,  in  his  own  subordinate  sphere, 
has  the  power  of  originating  thought,  the  .power  of 
spontaneous  moral  action  :  this,  this  only^  is  the 
ground  of  his  responsibility.  Will  it  be  said  that  this 
puts  man  entirely  out  of  the  control  of  his  Creator  ? 
I  answer,  By  no  means.  It  only  puts  him  out  of  the 
control  of  such  direct  influences  as  would  destroy  his 
moral  liberty.  Does  the  power  of  moral  action,  inde- 
pendent of  the  magistracy  and  the  laws,  destroy  all  the 
control  of  the  civil  government  over  malefactors? 
How  much  less  in  the  other  case  ?  God  can  prevent 
all  the  mischief  that  a  vicious  agent  might  attempt, 
without  throwing  any  restraint  upon  his  responsible 
volitions.  It  is  thus  that  he  "  makes  the  wrath  of  man 
praise  him,  and  the  remainder  of  wrath  he  restrains." 
Let  it  be  understood,  then,  from  this  time  forward, 
by  all,  as  indeed  it  has  been  understood  heretofore  by 
those  who  have  carefully  examined  the  subject,  that 
when  the  Calvinists  talk  about  "  free  will,"  and 
"human  liberty,"  they  mean  something  essentially 
differeyit  from  what  we  mean  by  these  terms ;  and,  as 
it  is  believed,  something  essentially  different  from  the 
popular  meaning  of  these  terms.  They  believe  in 
human  Uberty,  they  say,  and  the  power  of  choice,  and 
we  are  bound  to  believe  them;  but  we  are  also  bound 
not  to  suffer  ourselves  to  be  deceived  by  terms. 
Theirs  is  a  liberty  and  power  of  a  moral  agent  to  will 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  159 

as  he  doesj  and  not  otherwise.  Ours  is  an  unre- 
stricted liberty,  and  a  spontaneous  power  in  all 
responsible  volitions  to  choose  as  we  do  or  otherioise. 
Thus  far  I  have  examined  the  mind  in  its  power 
of  choosing  good  or  evil,  according  to  its  original 
constitution.  How  far  this  power  has  been  affected 
by  sin,  on  the  one  hand,  or  by  grace,  on  the  other,  is 
a  question  that  will  claim  attention  in  my  next. 


NUMBER  X. 

MORAL    AGENCY    AS    AFFECTED    BY    THE    FALL,  AND 
THE    SUBSEQUENT    PROVISIONS    OF    GRACE. 

My  last  number  was  an  attempt  to  prove  that  God 
created  man  with  a  spontaneous  power  of  moral 
action ;  and  that  this  was  the  only  ground  of  his 
moral  responsibility.  It  is  now  proposed  to  inquire 
how  far  this  power  has  been  affected  by  the  fall  and 
the  subsequent  provisions  of  grace.  The  doctrine  of 
the  Methodist  Church  on  these  points  is  very  clearly 
expressed  by  the  7th  and  8th  articles  of  religion  in 
her  Book  of  Discipline. 

1.  "  Original  sin  standeth  not  in  the  following  of 
Adam,  (as  the  Pelagians  vainly  talk,)  but  it  is  the 
corruption  of  the  nature  of  every  man  that  naturally 
is  engendered  of  the  offspring  of  Adam,  whereby  man 
is  very  far  gone  from  original  righteousness,  and  of 
his  own  nature  inclined  to  evil,  and  that  continually." 

2.  "  The  condition  of  man  after  the  fall  of  Adam 
is  such  that  he  cannot  turn  and  prepare  himself,  by 
his  own  natural  strength  and  works,  to  faith  and 
calling  upon  God :  wherefore  we  have  no  power  to  do 
good  works  pleaJsant  and  acceptable  to  God,  without 


160  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

the  grace  of  God  by  Christ  preventing  us,  (going 
before  to  assist  us,)  that  we  may  have  a  good  will, 
and  working  with  us  when  we  have  that  good  will." 
It  is  not  pretended  here  that  any  intellectual  facul- 
ties are  lost  by  sin,  or  restored  by  grace  ;  but  that  the 
faculties  that  are  essential  to  mind  have  become  cor- 
rupted, darkened,  debilitated,  so  as  to  render  man 
utterly  incapable  of  a  right  choice  without  prevenient 
and  co-operating  grace.  As  muscular  or  nervous 
power  in  a  limb,  or  an  external  sense,  may  be  weak- 
ened or  destroyed  by  physical  disease,  so  the  moral 
power  of  the  mind  or  an  inward  sense  may  be  weak- 
ened or  destroyed  by  moral  disease.  And  it  is  in 
perfect  accordance  with  analogy,  with  universal  lan- 
guage, and  with  the  representations  of  Scripture,  to 
consider  the  mind  as  susceptible,  in  its  essential 
nature,  of  this  moral  deterioration.  If  any  one  should 
say  he  cannot  understand  what  this  moral  defect  is, 
I  would  answer  by  asking  him  if  he  can  tell  me  what 
the  essence  of  mind  is  ?  And  if  he  chooses  to  object 
to  this  kind  of  depravity,  because  he  cannot  under- 
stand it,  in  its  essence,  he  should  turn  materialist  at 
once  ;  and  then,  as  he  will  find  equal  difiiculty  to  tell 
what  the  essence  of  matter  is,  and  in  what  its  weak- 
ness and  disorder  essentially  consist,  he  must  turn 
universal  skeptic.  The  simple  statement  is,  the  soul 
has  become  essentially  disordered  by  sin  ;  and  as  no 
one  can  prove  the  assertion  to  be  unphilosophical  or 
contrary  to  experience,  so  1  think  it  may  be  shown 
from  Scripture  that  this  is  the  real  state  of  fallen 
human  nature.  And  it  may  also  be  shown  that  this 
disorder  is  such  as  to  mar  man's  free  agency.  There 
is  a  sense,  indeed,  in  which  all  voluntary  preference 
may  be  considered  as  implying  free  agency.      But 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  161 

voluntary  preference  does  not  necessarily  imply  such 
a  free  agency  as  involves  moral  responsibility.  The 
mind  may  be  free  to  act  in  one  direction^  and  yet  it 
may  so  entirely  have  lost  its  moral  equilibrium  as  to 
be  utterly  incapable,  of  its  own  nature,  to  act  in  an 
opposite  direction,  and  therefore  not,  in  the  full  and 
responsible  sense,  a  free  agent.  It  is  not  enough, 
therefore,  to  say,  "  Free  agency  (of  a  responsible  kind) 
consists  in  the  possession  of  understanding,  conscience, 
and  will ;"  (see  Christian  Spectator  for  September, 
1830 ;)  unless  by  lolll  is  meant  the  spontaneous  power 
already  alluded  to.  The  understanding  may  be  dark> 
ened,  the  conscience  may  be  seared  or  polluted,  the 
will,  that  is,  the  power  of  willing,  may,  to  all  good  pur- 
poses, be  inthralled ;  and  this  is  what  we  affirm  to  be 
the  true  state  and  condition  of  unaided  human  nature. 
It  will  be  farther  seen  that  the  above  account  of 
human  nature  does  not  recognise  the  distinction  of 
natural  and  moral  ability.  The  fact  is,  man's  inabi- 
lity is  both  natural  and  moral ;  it  is  natural,  because 
it  is  constitutional ;  and  it  is  moral,  because  it  relates 
to  the  mind.  To  say  a  fallen  man  has  natural  power 
to  make  a  right  choice,  because  he  has  the  faculties 
of  his  mind  entire,  is  the  same  as  to  say  that  a  paraly- 
tic man  has  the  natural  power  to  walk,  because  he 
has  his  hmbs  entire.  It  appears  to  me  that  the  whole 
of  this  distinction,  and  the  reasoning  from  it,  proceed 
on  the  ground  of  a  most  unphilosophical  analysis  of 
mind  and  an  unwarranted  definition  of  terms.  The 
simple  question  is.  Has  fallen  man,  on  the  whole^  the 
power  to  make  a  right  choice,  or  has  he  not  ?  We  say 
without  grace  he  has  not.  And  therefore  fallen  man 
is  not,  in  the  responsible  sense  of  that  term,  a  free 
agent  without  grace. 


102  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

This  view  of  the  subject  is  not  novel  in  the  church. 
I  readily  acknowledge  that  a  doctrine  is  not  therefore 
true,  because  it  has  been  held  by  many,  and  can  be 
traced  back  to  antiquity,  unless  it  can  be  proved  to  be 
Scriptural.  The  fact,  however,  that  a  doctrine  has 
been  generally  received  in  the  church,  entitles  it  to 
respect  and  to  a  careful  examination  before  it  is  dis- 
carded. Hence,  to  those  who  have  only  read  modern 
Calvinistic  authors  on  this  subject,  it  may  be  a  matter 
of  surprise  to  learn  that  not  only  the  more  ancient 
fathers,  but  even  St.  Austin  himself,  the  introducer 
of  predestination  into  the  church,  and  Calvin,  and  the 
Synod  of  Dort,  were  all  supporters  of  sentiments  sub- 
stantially the  same  as  are  here  vindicated — T  say, 
those  who  have  only  read  modern  Calvinistic  authors 
will  be  surprised  to  learn  this,  because  these  authors 
treat  this  doctrine  as  though  it  were  so  unreasonable 
and  absurd  as  scarcely  to  be  tolerated  in  the  view  of 
common  sense.  Though  it  may  have  an  influence  with 
some,  in  a  paucity  of  better  reasons,  to  scout  a  doc- 
trine from  the  church  by  calling  it  absurd,  yet  the 
candid  will  not  readily  give  up  an  old  doctrine  for  a 
new  without  good  reason. 

I  had  at  first  thought  of  quoting  pretty  freely  from 
some  of  the  fathers,  and  especially  from  the  early 
Calvinists,  to  show  their  views  on  this  point.  But  it 
may  not  be  necessary,  unless  the  statements  here 
made  should  be  denied.  Let  therefore  one  or  two 
quotations  from  Calvin  and  from  the  Synod  of  Dort, 
both  of  which  I  think  Calvinists  will  acknowledge  as 
good  Calvinistic  authority,  suffice.  Calvin  denies  all 
power  to  man,  in  his  apostacy,  to  choose  good,  and 
says  that,  "being  surrounded  on  every  side  with  the 
most  miserable  necessity,  he  (man)  should  neverthe- 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  163 

less  be  instructed  to  aspire  to  the  good  of  which  he  is 
destitute,  and  to  the  liberty  of  which  he  is  dej)rivedy 
The  Synod  of  Dort  decided  thus : — "  We  beUeve 
that  God — formed  man  after  his  own  image,  &c., 
capable  in  all  things  to  loill  agreeably  to  the  will 
of  God."  They  then  speak  of  the  fall,  and  say,  "  We 
reject  all  that  is  repugnant  to  this  concerning  the  free 
will  of  man,  since  man  is  but  a  slave  to  sin^  and  has 
nothing  of  himself,  unless  it  is  given  him  from  heaven." 
And,  speaking  of  the  change  by  grace,  they  add,  "  The 
will  thus  renewed  is  not  only  actuated  and  influenced 
by  God,  but  in  consequence  of  this  influence  be- 
comes itself  active.  And  to  show  that  Calvin  did 
not  consider  the  voluntary  acts  of  a  depraved  sinner 
as  proof  of  free  will,  he  says,  '•'  Man  has  tiot  ayl 
equally  free  election  of  good  and  evil,  and  can  only 
be  said  to  have  free  will,  because  he  does  evil  volun- 
tarily, and  not  by  constraint ;"  and  this  he  ironically 
calls  "  egregious  liberty  indeed  !  if  man  be  not  com- 
pelled to  serve  sin,  but  yet  is  such  a  willing  slave  that 
his  will  is  held  in  bondage  by  the  fetters  of  sin." 
These  quotations,  I  think,  show  satisfactorily  that  the 
early  Calvinists  believed  man  to  have  lost  his  pow-er 
to  choose  good  by  apostacy,  and  can  only  regain  it 
by  grace.  It  is  true,  they  generally  believed  that 
whenever  this  grace  was  imparted  to  an  extent  to 
restore  to  the  mind  the  power  of  choosing  good,  it 
was  regenerating  grace.  And  herein  they  differ 
from  the  Arminians,  who  believe  that  grace  may 
and  does  restore  the  power  to  choose  good  before 
regeneration.  This,  however,  does  not  affect  the 
point  now  under  examination,  but  involves  a  colla- 
teral question,  which  will  be  examined  in  its  proper 
place.  One  thought  more,  and  I  pass  to  the  arguments 


164  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

on  the  main  questions  in  the  articles  quoted  above. 
These  articles  are  taken  from  the  9th  and  10th  of 
the  articles  of  the  Church  of  England.  Our  8th 
is  indeed  identically  the  same  as  the  10th  of  the 
Church  of  England ;  and  the  latter  part  of  that 
article,  commencing,  "Wherefore,"  &c.,  is  taken 
substantially  from  St.  Austin  himself  Thus  much 
for  the  Calvinistic  authority  of  the  doctrine  we 
defend.  To  which,  if  it  were  necessary,  we  might 
add  quotations  from  Beza,  Dr.  Owen,  a  decided 
Calvinist,  and  many  of  the  ancient  fathers.  Nay, 
the  Remonstrants  declared,  in  the  presence  of  the 
Synod  of  Dort,  that  this  was  "  the  judgment  of  all 
antiquity." 

Let  us  now  notice  some  arguments  in  favour  of  this 
doctrine. 

1.  The  doctrine  above  stated,  and  now  to  be  defend- 
ed, must  be  true,  as  is  believed,  since  only  this  view 
of  man's  condition  will  accord  with  the  Scripture  ac- 
count of  depravity.  If  the  Scriptures  teach  that  man 
is  constiti^tionally  depraved,  that  a  blight  and  a  torpor 
have  come  over  his  moral  nature,  comparable  to  sleep, 
to  disease,  and  to  death,  how  caif  it  be  otherwise  than 
that  this  should  effect  his  power  to  choose  good? 
Had  man  any  too  much  moral  power  in  the  first  in- 
stance to  constitute  him  an  accountable  moral  agent? 
And  if  he  had  not,  has  he  enough  now  that  his  mind 
has  become  darkened,  his  judgment  perverted,  and  his 
moral  powers  corrupted  and  weakened  ?  Or  will  it 
be  denied  that  the  moral  energies  of  his  nature  have 
been  impaired  by  sin?  If  not,  how  has  he  been 
affected  ?  Let  any  one  spend  a  thought  on  this  ques- 
tion, and  decide,  if  he  can,  what  definite  vicious  effect 
can  be  produced  on  man's  moral  nature  which  will  not 


m 


'^f^L^.. 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  165 

necessarily  imply  a  weakening  and  an  embarrassment 
of  his  original  power  to  a  right  choice.  Should  it  be 
said  that  his  power  is  somewhat  weakened,  but  he  has 
enough  left  to  constitute  him  free  to  choose  good,  this 
would  imply  that  before  the  loss  he  had  more  than 
enough  !  Besides,  such  an  idea  would  rest  on  the 
principle  that  man's  moral  nature  was  not  ivholly 
vitiated.  It  is  said,  I  know,  that  all  the  embarrass- 
ment which  man  has  to  a  right  choice  is  a  disinclina- 
tion to  moral  good.  But  if  this  disinclination  to  good 
be  derived  and  constitutional,  it  exists  in  the  mind 
previous  to  any  act  of  choice,  and  is  therefore  the  very 
thing  we  mean — it  is  this  very  thraldom  of  the  mind 
which  utterly  incapacitates  it  to  choose  good.  If  it  be 
asked  whether  disinclination  can  ever  be  so  strong  as 
to  destroy  the  freedom  of  the  will  to  act  in  one  parti- 
cular direction,  I  answer  most  unhesitatingly,  Yes ; 
and  if  that  disinclination  is  either  created  or  derived, 
and  not  the  result  of  an  antecedent  choice,  the  possessor 
is  not  morally  obligated  to  act  in  opposition  to  it,  unless 
he  receive  foreign  aid  to  help  his  infirmities,  and  to 
strengthen  him  for  a  contrary  choice. 

It  follows  then,  I  think,  that  we  must  either  give  up 
constitutional  depravity,  or  discard  the  notion  that  we 
can  make  a  right  choice  without  divine  aid.  And  here, 
if  I  mistake  not,  we  shall  find  the  precise  point  on  which 
modern  Calvinism  has  verged  over  into  the  New  Divi- 
nity theory  of  depravity.  Perceiving  that  to  acknow- 
ledge any  depravity  of  man's  moral  constitution  would 
either  imply  the  necessity  of  supernatural  aid  in  order 
to  a  right  choice,  or  else  free  man  from  responsibi- 
lity, Dr.  Taylor  and  his  associates  have  resolved  all 
depravity  into  choice  or  voluntary  'preference.  They 
deny  that  there  is  any  thing  in  the  nature  of  man, 


166  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

antecedently  to  his  act  of  willing,  that  possesses  a  mo- 
ral character.  Their  idea  is  perfectly  consistent  with 
the  notion  of  natural  ability ;  and  that  the  advocates 
of  the  New  Divinity  have  embraced  this  idea  is  evi- 
dently a  proof  that  they  think  closely  and  are  seeking 
after  consistency,  let  it  lead  them  where  it  will.  The 
only  wonder  is,  that  all  who  cleave  to  the  dogma  of 
natural  abihty  do  not  follow  them.  The  doctrine  of 
natural  ability,  if  it  is  any  thing  more  than  a  name, 
appears  evidently  to  be  a  part  of  the  old  Pelagian  sys- 
tem, and  should  never  be  separated  from  its  counter- 
part— the  doctrine  of  self-conversion  and  the  natural 
perfectibility  of  the  human  character.  But  this  clearly 
implies  that  there  is  no  serious  derangement  or  radical 
viciousness  of  the  moral  man.  Here,  then,  is  another 
instance  in  which  Calvinists  in  general  revolt  at  the 
legitimate  results  of  their  own  system. 

But  while  the  New  Divinity  advocates  have  fear- 
lessly removed  an  important  objection  to  their  doc- 
trine, they  have,  by  this  very  act,  as  it  is  believed,  how- 
ever little  they  may  have  designed  it,  set  themselves 
in  fearful  array  against  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  de- 
pravity and  salvation  by  grace,  and  have  opened  a 
wide  door  for  the  introduction  of  numerous  and  dan- 
gerous heresies.  It  is  true,  they  will  not  own  that 
they  have  gone  very  far  from  the  old  system.  They 
think  the  doctrine  of  natural  depravity  is  asserted  when 
they  say,  "  Man's  natirre  is  such  that  he  will  sin,  and 
only  sin,  in  all  the  appropriate  circumstances  of  his 
being."  (See  Dr.  Taylor's  Sermon.)  But  what  this 
"  nature  "  is,  we  are  at  a  loss  to  determine  ;  as  also  what 
the  "5wcA"  is  that  is  predicated  of  this  nature;  nor 
has  Dr.  Taylor  told  us  how  he  knows  that  all  men 
will  sin  and  only  sin,  when  in  fact  they  have  natural 


CALV1N15TI0    CONTROVERSY.  167 

power  to  avoid  it ;  or  in  what  other  than  "the  appro- 
priate circumstances  of  their  beins:"  those  are  who 
become  regenerate.  In  fact,  while  this  theory  claims 
to  be  orthodox,  and  thus  ta  assimilate  itself  with  the 
old  theory,  it  has  only  exchanged  one  inconsistency 
for  a  half  score.  Its  advocates,  to  be  consistent,  must 
come  out  plain  and  open  Pelagians,  and  then  meet  the 
Scripture  doctrineof  depravity  and  salvation  by  grace 
as  they  can,  or  they  must  go  back  to  their  old  ground, 
and  endure  the  manifest  inconsistency  they  are  now 
endeavouring  to  avoid  ;  or.  what  seems  to  me  better 
than  either,  come  on  to  the  Arminian  ground,  which 
shuns  all  these  difficulties,  while  it  maintains  constitu- 
tional depravity  and  salvation  by  grace  from  the  foun- 
dation to  the  top  stone,  including,  of  course,  a  gracious 
ability  to  choose  life  and  gain  heaven. 

2.  Another  argument  in  favour  of  the  necessity  of 
divine  grace,  in  order  to  a  right  choice,  is  the  fact,  that 
God  actually  gives  grace  to  those  who  finally  perish, 
as  well  as  to  those  who  are  saved.  Of  this  fact  the 
Scriptures  afford  decisive  proof  They  speak  in  gene- 
ral terms.  Jesus  Christ  "  is  the  true  light  that  lighteth 
every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world."  "  The  grace 
of  God  that  bringeth  salvation  hath  appeared  unto  all 
men."  They  speak  in  special  terms  of  the  unregene- 
rate — that  they  grieve^  resist,  and  quench  the  Spirit 
o( grace,  which  certainly  they  could  not  do  if  they 
had  it  not.  But  if  they  have  the  operations  of  the 
Spirit,  what  are  these  operations  ?  What  is  the  Spirit 
doing  to  the  inner  man  ?  Will  it  be  said  he  is  bringing 
motives  to  bear  upon  the  mind  7  But  what  motives 
other  than  those  found  in  the  gospel!  These  the 
sinner  has  without  the  Spirit.  If  these  motives  can 
convert  sinners,  any  of  us  can  convert  our  neighbours. 


168  CALVINisTIC    CONTROVKKSY. 

"But,"  it  is  said,  "  the  Spirit  makes  the  heart  feel  these 
motives."  Ay,  truly  he  does,  and  that  not  by  operat- 
ing upon  the  motives,  but  upon  the  heart,  and  this  is 
the  very  work  we  contend  for.  It  is  thus  that  the 
Spirit  graciously  arouses  and  quickens  the  dead  soul, 
and  brings  it  to  feel,  and  excites  it  to  act,  in  the  great 
work  of  salvation. 

Since,  then,  it  must  be  granted  that  unregenerate 
sinners,  and  those  who  are  finally  lost,  have  the  ope- 
rations of  this  Spirit  of  grace,  let  me  seriously  inquire, 
For  what  purpose  is  this  grace  given  ?  On  the  Calvin- 
istic  ground  it  cannot  be  that  they  may  have  a  chance 
for  salvation,  and  thus  be  without  excuse ;  for  this  is 
secured  without  grace.     Since  they  have  natural  abi- 
lity to  come  to  Christ,  the  abuse  of  that  ability  is 
sufficient  to  secure  their  just  condemnation.     So  say 
the  Calvinists  ;  and  on  this  ground  they  maintain  that 
the  reprobates  are  justly  condemned.     For  what  pur- 
pose, then,  is  this  grace  given  ?  If  we  may  establish  a 
general  principle  by  an  induction  of  particulars ;  if  wo 
may  judge  of  the  design  of  the  God  of  providence  or 
grace,  by  noticing,  in  any  given  case,  the  uniform 
results,  then  we  can  easily  determine  this  point.     God 
gives  grace  to  the  rejjrohates  that  their  conde^nnation 
may  be  the  more  aggravated.    The  argument  stands 
thus :    God  gives  grace  to  the  reprobates  for  some 
important  purpose.    He  does  not  gwe  it  that  salvation 
may  be  possible  to  them,  for  they  are  able  to  be  saved 
without  it ;   he  does  not  give  it  to  make  salvation 
certain,  for  this  it  does  not  effect;    nevertheless  he 
gives  them  grace,  the  invariable  effect  of  which  is  to 
increase  their  condemnation.     The  only  consistent 
inference  therefore  is,  that  he  gives  grace  to  the  repro- 
bates that  they  may  have  a  more  aggravated  condem- 


CALVIMSTIC   CONTROVERSY.  169 

nation.  Here,  then,  we  trace  the  Calvinistic  theory 
to  one  of  those  logical  consequences  char^fed  upon  it 
in  the  sermon,  and  which  has  been  so  strenuously- 
denied  by  the  reviewers— a  consequence  which,  revolt 
ing  as  it  is,  must  nevertheless  be  charged  upon  it  still, 
unless  its  advocates  can  show  why  grace  is  given  to 
the  reprobates  when  they  have  all  necessary  ability  to 
repent  and  believe  without  it. 

3.  On  the  ground  of  this  doctrine,  also,  there  would 
be  some  difficulty  in  accounting  for  the  necessity  of 
giving  grace,  in  all  cases,  even  to  the  elect.     Why 
may  not  some  of  these  repent  without  grace  ?  Nay, 
why  may  not  some  of  the  reprobates,  in  the  plenitude 
of  their  natural  ability,  repent  and  be  converted,  in 
despite  of  the  decree  of  reprobation  ?  Did  God  foresee 
that  they  would  not,  and  on  that  foresight  predicate 
his  decree  of  reprobation  ?   But  that  would  be  a  con- 
ditional reprobation,  and  would  therefore  imply  its 
counterpart — a  conditional  election.     This  no  class 
of  Calvinists  will  admit.     How  happens  it,  then,  that 
some  of  these  reprobates  do  not  get  converted,  since 
they  not  only  have  natural  powers  enough  to  make  a 
right  choice,  but  have  some  grace  beside  ?  Is  it  because 
God  has  fixed  the  barrier  in  something  else,  by  which 
this  ability,  grace,  and  all  are  rendered  nugatory?  But 
this  would  render  their  condemnation  unjust,  Cal- 
vinists themselves  being  judges.   They  tell  us  that  the 
only  just  ground  of  condemnation  is,  that  the  sinner 
will  not  come  to   Christ.     Here,  then,  is  the  most 
extraordinary  thing  that  angels  or  men  ever  knew  \  ' 
for  almost  six  thousand  years  there  has  been  upon  our 
earth  a  succession  of  generations  of  sinners,  and  in 
the  present  generation  of  them  there  are  eight  hun- 
dred millions.   All  of  these,  throughout  all  their  gene- 

8 


170  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

rations,  have  had  no  other  obstruction  to  salvation 
but  what  exists  in  their  own  will,  and  each  and  all 
have  had  by  nature  all  needful  ability  in  the  will  to  a 
right  choice,  and  have  had  a  measure  of  grace  super- 
added, and  yet  not  a  reprobate  among  them  all  has 
ever  made  a  right  choice :  and  not  one  of  the  elect 
ever  did  or  ever  will  make  such  a  choice  until  God, 
by  an  omnipotent  act,  "makes  his  elect  willing  in  the 
day  of  his  power ! !"  This  is  a  miracle  to  which  all 
the  other  miracles  in  the  world  are  as  nothing — a 
miracle  which  Omnipotence  alone  can  accomplish  by 
a  divine  constitution  and  an  all-controlling  energy. 
Thus  this  doctrine  destroys  itself.  It  assumes  posi- 
tions, with  respect  to  free  will,  that  cannot  be  main- 
tained, only  on  the  supposition  of  an  efficient  superior 
agency  to  direct  the  action  of  that  free  zvill,  in  a 
course  of  sinful  volition,  in  hundreds  of  millions  of 
cases,  without  a  single  variation,  save  where  that 
variation  is  the  result  of  the  same  superior  Power 
acting  in  the  opposite  direction. 

4.  That  the  sinner  receives  aid  by  divine  grace  to 
enable  him  to  repent,  and  that  he  could  not  repent 
without  this,  appears'  evident  from  the  Scriptural 
representation  of  the  ground  of  man's  responsibility. 
^'  If  I  had  not  come,"  says  the  Saviour,  "  ye  had  not 
had  sin."  "  This  is  the  condemnation,  that  light  has 
come  into  the  world,  and  men  loved  darkness  rather 
than  light."  "He  that  believeth  not  is  condemned 
already,  because  he  hath  not  believed  in  tlie  only 
begotten  Son  of  God."  "  Because  I  have  called,  and 
ye  have  refused,  &c.,  I  also  will  laugh  at  your  cala- 
mity." These  and  many  other  passages  seem  to 
imply  that  the  sinner  is  rejected  on  the  ground  of  his 
neglecting  offered  grace.     But  if  this  is  the  ground 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  171 

of  his  condemnation,  it  is  not  for  the  abuse  of  natural 
power.  I  see  no  way  for  a  plausible  attempt  even  to 
get  rid  of  this  argument,  unless  it  should  be  attempted 
to  raise  a  question  respecting  the  nature  of  this  grace. 
It  may  be  said  that  "  these  passages  only  relate  to 
gracious  provisions,  such  as  the  atonement,  the  Scrip- 
tures of  truth,  (fee,  and  have  no  reference  whatever  to 
a  gracious  influence  upon  the  mind.  The  mind  had 
sufficient  strength  to  believe,  repent,  (fee,  but  some- 
thing must  be  presented  to  believe  in ;  and  some  pro- 
vision must  be  made  to  make  repentance  available." 
In  reply  I  would  say, — First,  Even  this  shows  that 
man  could  not  have  been  saved  from  sin  without 
grace,  and  hence  on  this  ground  this  theory  would  be 
involved  in  the  very  difficulty  which  it  attempts  to 
throw  upon  our  view  of  the  subject,  viz.,  that  grace 
is  necessary  to  make  men  guilty,  because  none  can  be 
guilty  in  a  case  where  their  course  is  unavoidable. 
But,  leaving  this  for  another  place,  I  would  say 
farther,  in  reply  to  the  above,  that  the  Scriptures  do 
not  represent  this  grace  as  confined  Xo  external  provi- 
sions^ but,  on  the  contrary,  speak  of  it  as  operating 
upon  and  influencing  the  mind,  and  that,  too,  in  the 
very  way  for  which  we  contend.  Look  at  a  few 
Scriptural  expressions,  promiscuously  selected,  and 
see  how  clearly  they  sustain  our  position.  In  the  first 
place,  to  give  the  argument  full  force,  let  us  notice  the 
Scripture  account  of  man's  natural  condition.  He  is 
"  in  darkness,"  "  asleep,"  "  dead,"  "  without  strength," 
"  sick,"  "  deaf,"  "  Wind,"  "  lame,"  "  bound,"  "  helpless ;" 
and  all  this  in  consequence  of  sin.  Indeed,  this  is  the 
very  definition  of  his  sinful  character  and  condition. 
If  such  language  does  not  describe  utter  inability  of 
the  sinner  to  serve  God,  then  no  language  can  do  it 


173  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

Now  let  us  see  what  grace  does.  Its  very  design  is 
to  "  awake  the  sleeper ;"  to  unstop  deaf  ears,  and 
"open  blind  eyes;"  to  "lighten  every  man;"  to 
"strengthen  with  might  by  the  Spirit  in  the  inner 
man."  '•'  Christ  strengthens"  the  sinner,  that  he  may 
"do  all  things."  It  is  on  the  ground  that  "God 
worketh  in  him  to  will  and  to  do,"  that  man  is  ex- 
horted to  "  work  out  his  salvation  with  fear  and 
trembling."  "  Thou  strengthenedst  me  with  strength 
171  my  souV^  But,  leaving  farther  quotations  of  this 
kind,  let  the  reader  fix  his  attention  on  the  stress 
which  the  Scriptures  lay  upon  the  striving  of  the 
Spirit,  All  the  efficacy  of  the  word  is  ascribed  to  the 
Spirit;  and  hence  the  apostle  declares  that  he 
"preached  the  gospel,  with  the  Holy  Ghost  sent  down 
from  heaven  ;"  that  it  "  came  not  in  word,  but  in 
poiver"  Indeed,  "the  letter  (of  the  word)killeth,  but 
the  Spirit  giveth  life."  Hence  the  frequent  cautions 
not  to  "grieve"  or  "quench  the  Spirit."  Now  what, 
I  ask,  can  all  these  scriptures  mean  ?  Is  there  any 
plausibility  in  the  idea,  that  by  such  expressions 
nothing  is  meant  but  the  general  provisions  of  grace 
in  the  gospel  economy?  That  no  direct,  gracious 
influence  of  the  Spirit  upon  the  heart  is  intended '? 
In  fact,  the  new  idea  of  conversion  by  motives  and 
moral  suasion  seems  to  be  a  device  to  meet  this  very, 
difficulty.  The  old  Calvinists  charge  the  advocates 
of  the  New  Divinity  with  holding  that  all  the  Spirit 
does  in  operating  upon  the  heart  is  not  by  operating 
upon  it  .directly,  but  indirectly  through  the  truth : 
which  has  given  rise  to  the  saying,  "  If  I  were  as 
eloquent  as  the  Holy  Ghost,  I  could  convert  souls  as 
well  as  he."  And  if  they  do  hold  this,  it  is  no 
wonder,  for  indeed  it  is  the  legitimate  consequence 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY.  173 

of  the  doctrine  of  natural  ability.  They  doubtless 
arrive  at  it  thus  : — According  to  the  Scriptures^  man's 
responsibility  turns  on  his  rejecting  or  improving  the 
grace  of  God.  That  grace  cannot  be  an  internal 
gracious  influence  upon  man's  moral  nature,  because 
that  would  conflict  with  the  notion  of  responsibility, 
on  the  ground  of  natural  power.  These  scriptures, 
therefore,  can  mean  nothing  more  than  that  a  gracious 
atonement  is  provided,  and  a  record  of  divine  truth 
made,  and  now,  in  the  use  of  his  natural  power,  the 
sinner  is  required  to  judge  of  and  embrace  this  truth, 
which  if  he  does,  he  in  this  sense  improves  the  grace 
of  God,  and  is  converted  ;  but  if  he  does  it  not,  he 
grieves  the  Spirit,  and  is  condemned.  Thus  in  the 
one  case,  if  he  is  converted,  it  is  in  the  use  of  his 
natural  power,  "  choosing  in  the  view  of  motives ;" 
and  in  the  other  case,  if  he  is  not  converted,  it  is  in 
the  use  of  his  natural  power,  refusing  in  view  of 
motives.  Is  not  this  correct  reasoning?  And  ought 
not  the  New-Haven  divines  to  be  commended  for 
carrying  out  the  system  to  its  legitimate  results? 
And  ought  not  all  to  follow  them  in  this,  who  hold  to 
natural  ability?  And  yet  no  wonder  that  they 
hesitate  here,  for  cold  and  spiritless  indeed  must  be 
that  system  of  religious  experience  that  resolves  the 
conversion  of  the  soul  into  a  mere  natural  operation 
of  choosing,  through  the  influence  of  moral  suasion. 

Leaving  this  system,  therefore,  to  labour  under  its 
fatal  embarrassments,  it  may  be  seen,  I  think,  that  the 
system  here  vindicated  corresponds  with  the  Scrip- 
tures and  is  consistent  with  itself;  for  it  makes  man's 
responsibility  turn  upon  grace  improved  or  misim- 
proved,  and  it  makes  that  grace  an  internal  quicken- 
ing influence,  and  a  strengthening  energy  upon  the 


174  CALVINISTIC  CONTROVERSY . 

heart ;  and  these  different  features  of  the  theory,  when 
placed  together,  all  seem  at  once  to  be  compatible  with 
each  other. 

5.  Express  passages  of  Scripture  teach  the  doctrine 
here  maintained. 

I  need  not  now  repeat  the  passages  already  referred 
to,  in  which  the  state  of  the  depraved  heart  is  de- 
scribed, and  which  show,  if  any  human  language  can 
show  it,  that  man  is  naturally  "  without  strength." 
But  my  object  is  to  call  the  attention  of  the  reader  to 
some  very  direct  and  express  passages,  to  show  that 
it  is  grace,  and  grace  alone,  that  enables  the  soul  to  do 
the  will  of  God.  "  I  can  do  all  things,"  saith  the 
apostle,  "  through  Christ,  who  strengtheneth  me." 
Q^uery :  would  not  the  apostle  have  thought  it  pre- 
'illimption  to  have  said,  I  can  do  all  things  without 
strength  from  Christ  ?  Has  he  ever  intimated  such  a 
sentiment  in  all  his  waitings  ?  Does  he  not  rather 
say,  "  We  are  not  sufficient  of  ourselves  to  think  any 
thing  as  of  ourselves^  but  our  sufficiency  is  of  God  ?" 
This  is  the  apostle's  general  language,  and  it  is  in 
perfect  accordance  with  the  declaration  of  his  Master, 
"  Without  me  ye  can  do  nothing."  "  As  the  branch 
cannot  bear  fruit  of  itself,  except  it  abide  in  the  vine,  no 
more  can  ye^  except  ye  abide  in  me."  "  No  man  can 
come  to  me,  except  the  Father  draw  him."  "  Like- 
wise the  Spirit  helpeth  our  infirmities  ;  for  we  know 
not  what  to  pray  for  as  we  ought."  "  My  grace  is 
sufficient  for  thee ;  for  my  strength  is  made  perfect 
in  weakness."  "  The  God  of  all  grace — stablish, 
strengthen,  settle  you."  "  For  this  cause  I  bow  my 
knees  to  the  Father,  &c,,  that  he  would  grant  you, 
according  to  the  riches  of  his  glory,  to  be  strengthened 
with    might)   by    his   Spirit,   in   the   iniier  man," 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  175 

"according  to  the  power  that  worketh  in  W5."  It  is 
useless  to  quote  farther.  If  these  passages  do  not  show- 
that  our  strength  to  do  good  is  of  grace,  then  it  ap- 
pears to  me  the  Holy  Spirit  must  fail  of  an  ability  to 
communicate  that  idea  throus^h  human  lanaruasre. 
Will  it  be  said  that  some  of  these  passages  refer  to  the 
regenerate,  and  therefore  are  not  in  point  to  meet  the 
case  of  the  unregenerate?  I  would  ask,  in  reply, 
whether  regenerating  grace  takes  away  our  natural 
ability?  Certainly  if  the  regenerate  can  neither  think 
nor  do  any  thing  acceptable  without  grace,  much  more 
do  the  unregenerate  need  this  grace  to  enable  them 
to  make  a  right  choice.  "  And  yet,  in  the  face  of  these 
most  explicit  scriptures,  we  are  repeatedly  told  that 
man  has  natural  power  to  make  himself  a  new  heart ! 
To  the  foregoing  considerations  I  might  add,  if  any 
farther  proof  of  our  doctrine  were  necessary,  and  if 
this  paper  had  not  been  extended  so  far  already,  the 
universal  experience  of  all  Christians.  This  appears, 
from  their  language,  to  be  the  experience  of  Bible 
saints,  under  both  the  Jewish  and  Christian  dispen- 
sations. And  what  Christian  now  hving,  but  feels 
now,  and  felt  when  he  first  embraced  the  Saviour, 
that  the  strength  to  do  this  was  from  God-^directly 
from  God,  through  grace.  Hear  his  prayers — he 
pleads  his  weakness — he  asks  for  strength.  And 
what  does  he  mean  by  that  prayer  ?  Does  he  ask  for 
some  external  accommodation  and  aid?  No;  he 
wants  strength,  by  the  Spirit^  in  the  inner  man.  And 
this  is  the  prayer  of  all  Christians,  whether  they 
advocate  this  notion  of  natural  ability  or  not.  The 
sayings  and  writings  also  of  these  very  advocates  of 
natural  ability,  so  powerful  is  this  feeling  of  depend- 
ance,  are  often  in  perfect  coincidence  with  the  doc- 


176  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

trine  we  defend.  A  most  striking  instance  of  this  is 
found  in  Dr.  Wood's  pamphlet  (page  97)  in  opposition 
to  Dr.  Taylor,  as  follows : — "  The  common  theory 
(of  Calvinistic  orthodoxy)  leads  us  to  entertain  low 
thoughts  of  ourselves,  especially  in  a  moral  view :  and 
to  feel  that  we  are  not  of  ourselves  sufficient  for  any 
thing  spiritually  good^  and  that,  for  whatever  holi- 
ness we  now  possess,  or  may  hereafter  attain,  we  are 
dependant  on  divine  grace."  What  stronger  gracious 
abiUty  do  Arminians  hold  to  than  this  ?  "  Not  of  our 
selves  sufficient  for  any  thing  spiritually  good."  And 
is  this  the  common  theory  of  Calvinism?  Then  Cal- 
vinism here,  as  in  other  points,  is  divided  against 
itself  Indeed,  one  would  be  induced  to  think,  were 
it  not  for  the  context,  either  that  Dr.  Wood  differed 
from  his  brethren  generally,  on  this  point,  or  was  off 
}iis  guard  at  this  moment.  But  he  tells  us,  in  this 
very  paragraph,  that  he  "  does  not  differ  at  all  from 
the  generality  of  ministers  in  New-England,  respect- 
ing the  natural  powers  and  faculties  of  man,  as  a 
moral  aad  accountable  being."  But  he  fears  the 
"unqualified  language"  which  Dr.  Taylor  "employs 
respecting  the  natural  state,  the  free  will,  and  the 
power  of  man."  On  reading  this  last  passage,  I  confess 
I  am  at  a  loss  to  know  what  to  say  or  believe  of  this 
Calvinistic  opinion  of  natural  power.  Dr.  Taylor's 
"unqualified  language"  respecting  "the  power  of 
man,"  I  take  to  be  a  frank  statement  of  Dr.  Wood's 
opinion,  and  that  of  other  Calvinists.  Dr.  Taylor 
says  man  has  natural  power  sufficient  to  make  a  right 
choice.  Does  not  Dr.  Wood  say  this  ?  He  says  he 
does  not  differ  from  "  the  generality ;"  and  it  is  noto- 
rious that  this  is.the  doctrine  of  the  generality  of  those 
ministers.   Dr.  Tyler,  of  Portland,  one  of  Dr.  Wood's 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY.  1T7 

coadjutors  in  opposins:  Dr.  Taylor,  says,  in  a  sermon* 
on  free  salvation,  "  There  is  no  reprobation  taught  in 
the  Scriptures  which  destroys  human  Uberty,  or 
which  impairs  the  sinner's  natural  power.  Every 
man  is  a  free  moral  agent.  Life  and  death  are  set 
before  him,  and  he  is  capable  of  choosing  between 
them."  What  language  can  be  more ''unqualified" 
than  this  ?  It  teaches  us  that  man  has  natural  power 
which  renders  him  capable  to  make  a  right  choice. 
It  is  true,  Dr.  Taylor,  and  "  those  who  believe  with 
him,"  carry  out  this  doctrine  into  its  legitimate 
and  practical  bearings.  On  the  ground  of  this  power, 
they  exhort  sinners  "  to  make  themselves  new  hearts." 
One  of  them,  as  reported  to  me  by  a  preacher,  went 
so  far  as  to  say,  in  a  public  address,  that  sinners  ought 
to  be  ashamed  to  ask  the  aid  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
convert  them,  since  they  had  power  to  convert  them- 
selves. And  what  objection  can  any  who  hold  to 
natural  power  to  choose  life  urge  against  this  ?  If, 
as  Dr.  Tyler  teaches,  in  his  "  Examination  of  Dr. 
Taylor's  Theological  Views,"  a  right  choice  implies 
regeneration  ;  and  if  every  man  is  naturally  capable 
of  a  right  choice,  as  taught  by  this  same  Dr.  Tyler 
and  the  "generality"  of  his  brethren,  then  it  follows 
conclusively,  and  I  see  not  how  any  sophistry  can 
cover  up  the  inference,  these  sinners  have  natural 
pov/er  to  convert  themselves.  Instead  therefore  of 
hypocritically  pleading  their  own  weakness  before  a 
throne  of  grace^  and  asking  for  mercy  and  grace  to 
help  them  in  their  time  of  need,  they  ought  to  be 
crimsoned  with  shame  for  their  folly  and  hypocrisy, 

*  A  part  of  this  sermon  has  lately  been  j^ublished,  in  a  tract 
form,  and  circulated  with  the  avowed  purpose  of  counteracting  the 
influence  of  the  sermon  "  on  predestination." 

8* 


178  CALVINISTIO   COJTTROVERSY. 

turn  away  from  their  impertinent  suit,  throw  them- 
selves upon  the  resources  of  nature^  and  regenerate 
their  own  hearts.  If,  however,  these  gentlemen  beheve 
it  impossible  for  sinners  to  do  this,  then,  taking  their 
whole  theory  together,  this  power  is  no  power,  and 
community,  up  to  this  hour,  has  been  deluded  by  un- 
meaning words — words  which  only  serve  to  conceal 
the  deformity  of  a  theological  system  which,  when 
thoroughly  examined,  is  foundj  after  all,  to  teach  that 
the  poor  reprobate  has  no  adequate  power  by  nature, 
and  receives  no  available  aid  from  grace,  to  choose 
salvation,  and  must  therefore,  from  the  imperious 
necessity  of  his  nature  and  condition,  go  down  to 
interminable  death. 


NUMBER  XI. 

SAJVfE     SUBJECT    CONTINUED. 

It  is  not  pretended  that  there  are  no  difficulties  in 
our  view  of  the  subject.  What  important  theory  is 
there  in'  philosophy,  politics,  morals,  or  religion, 
against  which  some  apparently  plausible  objection 
may  not  be  urged  ?  But  the  inquiry  in  each  case 
should  be.  Are  those  objections  fatal  to  the  system? 
Or  are  the  difficulties  in  the  proposed  system  greater 
than  in  some  other  view  of  the  subject?  For  reason- 
able men  will  refuse  to  be  driven  into  the  vortex 
of  skepticism  merely  because  there  are  some  difficul- 
ties and  obscurities  in  all  subjects  of  faith,  which  the 
limitations  to  human  vision  will  not  permit  us  to 
penetrate.  To  form  an  enlightened  comparative  view 
in  the  case  before  us,  it  will  be  important  that  we 
glance  at  the  different  theories  on  the  subject  of  de- 
pravity and  the  ground  of  responsibihty. 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  179 

1.  One  form  in  which  this  subject  has  been  held 
is,  "That  the  sin  of  Adam  introduced  into  his  nature 
such  a  radical  impotence  and  depravity,  that  it  is 
impossible  for  his  descendants  to  make  any  voluntary 
efforts  toward  piety  and  virtue,  or  in  any  respect  to 
correct  and  improve  their  moral  and  religious  charac- 
ter ;  and  that  faith  and  all  the  Christian  graces  are 
communicated  by  the  sole  and  irresistible  operation 
of  the  Spirit  of  God,  without  any  endeavour  or  con- 
currence on  the  part  of  man."    This  of  course  makes 
the  elect    entirely  passive  in  their  conversion ;  and 
consigns  the  reprobate  to  destruction  for  the  sin  of 
Adam,  which,  it  is  maintained,  is  imputed  to  him  by 
virtue  of  a  federal  relation  ;  or  at  best  gives  him  over 
to  unavoidable  personal  and  eternal  condemnation 
for  possessing  a  nature  which  he  had  no  agency  in 
bringing  upon  himself,  and  from  which  he  has  no 
power  to  extricate  himself     The  difficulties  of  this 
system  are  so  numerous  and  so  palpable,  whether  it 
be  tried  by  the  standard  of  Scripture,  of  reason,  or 
of  common  sense,  that  I  need  not  here  allude  to  them. 
Suffice  it  to  say  that  they  have  pressed  so  heavily 
upon  the  Calvinists  themselves  as  to  baffle  all  their 
ingenuity  and  invention  at  defence,  and  have  driven 
them  finally  into  all  those  changes  and  modifications 
so  frequently  alluded  to  in-  this  controversy.     I  will 
here  say  in  advance,  that,  in  my  opinion,  this,  after 
all,  is  the  strongest  position  Calvinism  can  assume. 
The  moment    its    advocates  depart  from  this,  they 
must  either,  to  be  consistent  with  themselves,  vero-e 
over  into  the  other  extreme  of  Pelagianism,  or  strike 
off  into  the  "golden  mean"  of  Arminianism.     This 
may  be  more  clearly  seen  in  the  sequel. 

2.  Pelagianism  is  another  and  an  opposite  theory. 


180  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

It  has  a  variety  of  shades,  called  Pelagian,  semi-Pela- 
gian, &c.  Its  varieties,  however,  relate  to  some  minor 
modifications  of  the  relation  of  the  human  family 
to  Adam,  touching  natural  evil,  the  death  of  the  body, 
and  greater  exposure  to  temptation.     But  there  is  a 
uniformity  in  the  essential  part  of  the  theory,  which 
is,  that  human  nature  is  free  from  sin  or  guilt  until  it 
becomes   guilty   by  intelligent^  voluntary  exercise. 
The  objections  to  this  theory  are,  among  others,  as 
follows.     It  is  in  direct  opposition  to  the  Scripture 
doctrine  of  native  depravity — a  doctrine  which  has 
been  often  and  ably  treated  of  and  defended  by  Cal- 
vinistic  and  Arminian  divines — a  doctrine  which  is 
imbodied  in  a  palpable  form  in  every  man's  own  ex- 
perience— a  doctrine  which  not  only  flashes  upon  the 
mind  of  the  student  in  every  page  of  the  history  of 
man,  but  also  upon  the  mind  of  the  unlettered  nurse 
in  the  earliest  emotions  of  the  infant  that  struggles  in 
her  arms. 

Another  objection  to  this  theory  is,  that  it  gives  to 
infants,  previous  to  intelligent  voluntary  exercise,  no 
moral  character.  Hence,  should  they  die  at  this  age, 
.  as  multitudes  doubtless  do,  they  would  not  be  fit  sub- 
jects either  for  the  rewards  of  heaven  or  the  pains  of 
hell.  At  the  judgment,  as  they  will  not  be  subjects  of 
praise  or  blame,  they  will  neither  be  on  the  right  hand 
nor  the  left,  and,  of  course,  will  neither  be  sentenced 
to  "  everlasting  punishment,"  nor  welcomed  "  into  life 
eternal."  If,  however,  they  by  any  means  go  into  a 
state  of  punishment,  their  sufferings  will  be  unjust; 
or  if  they  are  admitted  into  heaven,  it  will  not  be  a 
salvation  by  grace,  nor  will  it  be  preceded  by  regene- 
ration, nor  will  their  song  be,  "  Unto  Him  that  hath 
loved  us,"  (fee.     This  is  not  only  contrary  to  the  whole 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  181 

gospel  system,  but  also  is  in  direct  opposition  to  many 
scriptures,  especially  Rom.  v,  18  :  "  Therefore,  as  by 
the  offence  of  one,  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to 
condemnation ;  so,  by  the  righteousness  of  one,  the 
free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  life." 
It  also  leaves  infants  involved  in  the  natural  evils  of 
diseases,  pains,  and  death,  not  only  without  any  as- 
signable cause,  but  also  in  direct  opposition  to  the  cause 
assigned  by  the  apostle  :  "  And  so  death  passed  upon 
all  men,  for  that  all  have  sinned." 

A  third  objection  to  this  theory  is,  that  it  destroys 
the  Scripture  doctrine  of  regeneration.  The  Scrip- 
ture account  of  this  matter  is,  in  substance,  that  there 
is  a  radical  change  of  our  moral  nature  by  the  efficient 
operations  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  But  as  this  doctrine 
makes  sin  consist  exclusively  in  exercise,  so  holiness 
must  consist  wholly  in  exercise.  The  whole  work, 
therefore,  of  regeneration  is  a  mere  change  of  volition  ; 
and  this  volition  is  not  the  result  of  a  preceding  change 
of  moral  constitution,  but  it  is,  like  any  other  volition, 
produced  by  the  native  power  of  the  mind,  under  the 
exciting  influence  of  motives.  The  Holy  Spirit,  there- 
fore, may  well  be  dispensed  with  in  this  work.  The 
supernatural  character  of  the  change  must  be  given 
up,  and  the  whole  work  is  resolvable  into  a  natural 
process.  It  is  here  worthy  of  remark,  that  this  is  not 
mere  speculation.  Such  has,  in  fact,  been  the  final 
result  of  this  theory,  I  believe,  in  every  case  where  it 
has  long  been  defended.  And  hence,  in  close  connec- 
tion with  this,  the  supernatural  efficacy  of  the  atone- 
ment, and,  of  course,  the  divine  character  of  the  Re- 
deemer, are  found  to  be  notions  not  at  all  essential  to 
the  system,  and  somewhat  discordant  with  the  philo- 
sophy of  its  other  parts,  and  are  therefore  soon  brought 


182  CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY, 

into  discredit.  And  this,  too,  as  may  be  seen  by  the 
history  of  the  church,  has  been  the  practical  result 
wherever  Pelagianism  or  semi-Pelagianism  has  been 
cherished.  It  has  degenerated  into  Socinianisra.  It 
may  be  said,  then,  in  one  word,  that  this  doctrine  of 
Pelagianism  does,  in  its  teachings,  tendencies,  and 
practical  results,  supplant  and  overthrow  all  the 
essential  principles  of  the  gospel  system. 

3.  A  third  and  intermediate  theory  on  the  subject 
of  depravity  and  human  responsibility  is  the  one  pre- 
sented and  advocated  in  the  preceding  number.  This 
system  is  presented,  in  part,  in  the  very  language  in 
which  the  ultra-Calvinists  present  theirs.  Arminians, 
as  well  as  "  Calvinists,  say  that  the  sin  of  Adam  intro- 
duced into  his  nature  such  a  radical  impotence  and 
depravity  that  it  is  impossible  for  his  descendants  [who, 
it  is  believed,  are  propagated  in  the  moral  lijveness  of 
their  fallen  ancestor]  to  make  any  voluntary  efforts 
[unassisted  by  grace]  toward  piety  and  virtue,  or  in 
any  respect  to  correct  and  improve  their  moral  and 
religious  -character."  Thus  far  we  go  together  ;  but 
this  is  a  point  of  divergency,  from  which  we  take  very 
different  directions.  Instead  of  going  on  to  say  "that 
the  Christian  graces  are  communicated  by  the  irresis- 
tible operation  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  Avithout  any 
endeavour  or  concurrence  on  the  part  of  man,"  we  say 
that  "  the  saving  grace  of  God  hath  appeared  unto  all 
men  ;"  and  that  this  grace  so  enlightens,  strengthens, 
and  aids  the  human  mind,  that  it  is  thereby  enabled 
to  make  that  choice  which  is  the  turning  point,  con- 
ditionally, of  the  soul's  salvation  ;  and  that  it  is  by  this 
same  gracious  aid  that  the  man,  when  he  has  this  good 
will,  is  enabled  "  to  work  out  his  salvation"  unto  the 
end.     It  is  in  this  latter  part  of  the  statement  that  we 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  183 

are  at  issue  on  both  parts  with  the  Pelagians  of  every 
grade,  including,  of  course,  the  advocates  of  the  New- 
Divinity  in  our  country. 

To  the  foregoing  statement  of  our  doctrine  it  is 
proper  to  add,  that  we  believe  that  the  merits  of  the 
atonement  are  so  available  for  and  in  behalf  of  the 
whole  human  family,  that  the  guilt  of  depravity  is  not 
imputed  to  the  subject  of  it,  until  by  intelligent  volition 
he  makes  the  guilt  his  own  by  resisting  and  rejecting 
the  grace  of  the  gospel  ;  and  that,  being  thus  by  grace 
in  a  justified  state,  the  dying  infant  is  entitled  to  all 
the  promised  blessings  of  the  new  covenant,  and  will, 
of  course,  have  wrought  in  him  all  that  meetness 
necessary  to  qualify  him  for  the  gracious  rewards  of 
the  saints  in  glory.  Thus,  according  to  this  system, 
the  dying  infant,  as  well  as  the  dying  adult  believer, 
is  sanctified  by  the  blood  of  the  covenant,  and  saved 
by  grace. 

These  are  the  three  systems  which  are  presented 
to  the  inquirer  after  truth  as  the  alternatives,  and 
perhaps  I  may  say  the  only  alternatives,  of  choice, 
in  reference  to  this  subject.  It  is  true,  the  doctrine  of 
natural  ability  has  been  proposed  as  another  alterna- 
tive, holding  an  intermediate  place  between  the  \[3oc 
trines  of  native  impotency  as  first  stated  and  of  Pela- 
gianism.  And  it  may  therefore  appear  to  some,  that 
I  ought,  in  my  enumeration,  to  have  given  this  as  a 
separate  and  distinct  theory.  My  reason,  however,  for 
not  doing  this  is,  that  there  cannot,  in  my  opinion,  be 
such  a  resting-place  between  the  doctrines  af  derived 
constitutional  depravity  and  Pelagianism.  Natural 
ability  that  is  any  thing  more  than  a  name — that  is, 
in  fact,  an  ability^  destroys  the  idea  of  constitutional 
depravity  ;  and  depravity  that  is  any  thing  more  than 


184  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

a  name — that  is,  in  fact,  constitutional  depravity^ 
destroys  the  idea  of  natural  abiUty.  A  striking  proof 
of  this  is  found  in  the  fact  that  a  great  portion  of 
those  divines  in  the  Calvinistic  churches  who  have 
been  most  decided  in  preaching  up  natural  ability, 
have  gone  over  and  embraced  the  New  Divinity, 
which,  as  we  have  seen,  abjures  the  doctrine  of  con- 
stitutional depravity.  The  New-Haven  divines  are 
certainly  gentlemen  of  talents  and  of  close  thought ; 
and  they  have  been  following  up  this  doctrine  for  a 
number  of  years,  and  it  has  landed  them  upon  the 
logical  conclusion  that  there  is  no  such  depravity. 
But  we  need  not  trust  to  the  conclusions  of  the  New 
Divinity  advocates,  to  show  that  the  notions  of  natural 
ability  and  natural  freedom  from  guilt  and  sin  neces- 
sarily and  reciprocally  imply  each  other.  Why  have 
Calvinists  left  their  old  ground  of  natural  impotency, 
and  resorted  to  the  dogma  of  a  natural  ability  ?  It  is 
for  the  avowed  reason  that  there  can  be  no  guilt 
without  an  ability  to  avoid  it.  But  since  the  sin  of 
his  natuje  is  unavoidable  to  the  new-born  infant,  of 
course  he  can  have  no  guilt,  and  by  consequence  no 
sin,  until  he  is  capable  of  an  intelligent  moral  choice. 
Again  :  this  same  theory  tells  us  that  where  there  is 
no  natural  ability  there  is  no  moral  character.  But 
as  the  infant  cannot  be  reasonably  supposed  to  have 
ability  to  put  forth  an  intelligent  holy  volition,  he  can 
have  no  moral  character,  and  of  course  no  sin. 

The  only  way  to  avoid  this  conclusion  in  connec- 
tion with  the  assumed  premises  is,  to  maintain  that 
"the  infant,  from  his  birth,  is  a  voluntary  agent; 
and  thus,  in  fact,  to  a  certain  extent,  sinful."  And 
would  you  believe,  reader,  that  any  reasonable  man 
w^ould  resort  to  such  an  idea  for  the  sake  of  helping 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY.  185 

out  a  theory  ?  A7id  yet  it  is  even  so.  A  paper  lately 
published  under  the  sanction  of  the  New  Divinity, 
purporting  to  be  an  inquiry  into  "  what  is  the  real 
difference  between  the  New-Haven  divines  and  those 
who  differ  from  them,"  says,  "  The  ground  has  of  late 
been  taken  (if  we  understand  the  discussions  on  this 
subject)  that  mankind  are  literally  at  birth  voluntary 
and  accountable  agents,  and  actual  sinners  against 
God ;  that  the  new-born  infant  is  a  responsibl|  subject 
of  God'S  moral  government,  and  actually  sins  with  a 
knowledge  of  its  duty,  and  in  the  same  sense  with 
the  adult  sinner  violates  moral  obligation,  does  wrong, 
ought  to  be  penitent,  and  to  change  its  moral  cha- 
racter." And  as  a  proof  that  this  is  the  ground  now 
assumed,  the  same  writer  gives  us  a  quotation  from 
Rev.  Mr.  Harvey,  who  has  been  one  of  the  most  active 
in  this  State  in  opposition  to  the  New-Haven  divines, 
in  which  he  says,  "  A  moral  being,  for  aught  we  know, 
may  commence  his  existence  in  an  active^  voluntary 
state  of  the  will ;  he  may  be  a  voluntary  agent  from 
his  birth,  and  thus,  in  fact,  to  a  certain  extent  sinful, 
and  that  without  supposing  that  depravity  is  seated 
in  any  thing  but  the  luillP  This  same  writer  also 
states  that  Dr.  Spring,  in  a  treatise  on  "  native  depra- 
vity," a  work  which  I  have  not  at  hand,  has  advanced 
and  defended  the  sentiment  of ''  actual  sin  from  birth." 
And  has  it  indeed  come  to  this  at  last,  that  this  natural 
ability,  for  which  Calvinists  have  so  strenuously  con- 
tended, is  nothing  more  than  the  power  the  new-born 
infant  has  to  commit  actual  sin  on  the  one  hand,  or 
"make  himself  a  new  heart"  on  the  other!  Alas  for 
Calvinism!  To  what  miserable  shifts — yes,  I  must 
call  them  miserable  shifts — is  this  system  driven  !  On 
this  subject  I  will  not  express  myself  in  accordance 


186  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

with  my  feelings.  The  respect  I  have  for  the  intel- 
iigeni,  learned,  and  pious  gentlemen  who  have  ad- 
vanced this  idea,  restrains  me  in  this  matter.  Such 
a  result  in  the  advocacy  of  a  favourite  theory,  is,  how- 
ever, in  strict  accordance  with  the  known  obliquity 
of  the  greatest  and  purest  minds.  But  while  we 
respect  the  authors  of  such  a  theory,  and  while  we 
feel  the  necessity  of  taking  heed  to  ourselves,  lest  we 
also  fall  by  the  same  example  of  prejudice,  we  cannot 
suifer  our  common  sense  to  be  imposed  upon  by  such 
gross  absurdities.  In  this,  however,  we  see  that,  as 
before,  in  trying  to  maintain  their  abiliti/,  they  gave 
up  their  depravity:  so  here,  in  trying-  to  establish 
their  depravity^  they  destroy  their  ability.  Nay, 
what  is  still  worse  for  this  theory,  this  very  attempt  to 
prove  that  infants  are  ^^  actual  sinners  from  their 
birth,"  is  an  indirect  denial  of  the  doctrine  of  derived 
depravity.  Why  do  these  gentlemen  wish  to  establish 
this  point  ?  Why,  forsooth,  in  order  to  show  that  men 
are  guilty  from  their  birth,  which  is  an  acknowledg- 
ment, of- course,  that  they  cannot  prove  them  guilty 
only  by  proving  that  they  have  intelligent  moral 
exercise.  Consequently  it  is  a  concession  that  this 
exercise  is  the  occasion  and  origin  of  *  their  guilt. 
This  is  not  the  first  time  that  Calvinism,  in  trying  to 
save  itself,  has  gone  over  and  joined  the  ranks  of  its 
opposers.  Can  the  reader  see  the  difference  between 
this  doctrine  of  actual  sin  from  the  birth,  viewed  in 
connection  with  its  origin  and  bearings,  and  the  New 
Divinity,  which  makes  sin  consist  exclusively  in 
moral  exercise?  Let  these  old-side  Calvinists,  then, 
sheath  the  sword  of  controversy  which  they  have 
drawn  against  their  brethren,  and  join  in  with  them 
to  defend,  if  possible,  the  Pelagian  doctrine  which,  it 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  187 

would  seem,  after  all,  they  hold  in  common  stock. 
Has  the  Rev.  Mr.  Harvey  been  so  active  in  getting  up 
an  opposition  theological  school  in  Connecticut  to 
teach  that  the  infant  "commences  his  existence  in  an 
active  voluntary  state  of  the  will,  and  is  thus  (on 
this  account)  to  a  certain  extent  sinful?"  This  is 
clearly  a  work  of  supererogation — a  useless  expendi- 
ture of  money  and  of  talents.  The  New-Haven  Theo- 
logical School  is  capable,  alas !  too  capable,  of  carry- 
ing on  this  work,  especially  if  Mr.  Harvey  and  his 
friends  will  cease  their  opposition  and  unite  in  their 
assistance.  Does  Mr.  Harvey  fear  that  the  New- 
Haven  divines  will  not  begin  their  "  moral  exercise^^ 
early  enough  to  make  it  natural  dejyravity  7  They 
have  given  assurances  that  they  will  not  be  par- 
ticular on  that  point.  Only  allow  that  there  is  no 
sin  previous  to  the  first  intelligent  act  of  choice — 
previous  to  the  corresponding  power  to  make  them- 
selves new  hearts,  and  they  will  be  satisfied.  They 
have  said  already  that  -  this  capableness  of  sinning, 
if  it  is  not  at  the  exact  moment  of  birth,  [and  they  do 
not  affirm  that  it  is  not,]  commences  so  early  in  their 
existence,  that  it  is  proper,  for  all  the  great  purposes 
of  instr action,  to  speak  of  it  as  existing  from  the  be- 
ginning of  their  days."  Hence  we  see  nothing  be- 
tween these  gentlemen  on  this  point  worth  contending 
about.  It  will,  however,  be  important  that  all  who 
hold  to  conversion  by  motives  and  mere  moral  suasion 
should  not  put  the  commencement  of  these  "  moral 
exercises"  so  far  back  that  the  subject  cannot  under- 
stand gospel  truth  ;  otherwise  they  may  yet  get  into 
another  difficulty  as  serious  as  the  one  they  are  trying 
to  avoid.  But  to  the  subject.  It  has  been  very  dis- 
tinctly shown,  I  think,  from  the  reasoning  of  the 


188  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

Calvinists  themselves,  and  from  the  nature  of  the 
case,  that  there  can  be  no  such  intermediate  theory 
as  they  contend  for  between  the  native  impotency 
of  old  Calvinism  and  Pelagianism.  But  as  this  is  an 
important  point,  I  will  illustrate  it  farther  by  an  ex- 
amination of  the  seat  of  this  Calvinistic  depravity.  It 
is  seen,  by  the  quotation  above  from  Mr.  Harvey, 
that  he  considers  "  depravity  as  seated  in  nothing  but 
the  will."  And  this  is  avowedly  the  sentiment  of  at 
least  all  those  Calvinists  who  believe  in  natural 
ability.  It  is  on  this  ground  that  they  reiterate  inces- 
santly, "  You  can  if  you  will ;"  '•  There  is  no  difficulty 
except  what  is  found  in  a  perverse  will."  It  is  on 
this  ground,  also,  that  they  tell  us  "  a  right  choice  is 
conversion."  They  do  not  say  a  right  choice  is  a 
condition  or  a  fruit  of  the  new  birth  ;  but  it  is  itself 
the  neio  birth.  But  to  understand  this  subject  clearly 
it  is  important  to  know  what  they  mean  by  the  will. 
It  appears  to  me  they  use  this  term  with  great  inde- 
finiteness,  if  not  latitude  of  meaning.  If  they  mean 
by  this  what  I  understand  to  be  the  legitimate  mean- 
ing of  the  term,  "  the  mental  power  or  susceptibility 
of  putting  forth  volitions,"  then  to  say  that  all  depra- 
vity is  seated  in  the  will  is  to  be  guilty  of  the  gross 
absurdity  of  teaching  that  the  affections  have  not  a 
moral  character.  If  by  the  will,  however,  they  mean, 
as  they  frequently  seem  to  mean,  the  affections  them- 
selves going  out  in  desire  after  some  proposed  good, 
then  indeed  they  establish  the  New-Haven  theory, 
that  all  sin  consists  in  moral  exercise.  Thus,  by 
placing  all  depravity  in  the  will,  whether  by  this  is 
meant  the  power  of  willing  or  the  exercise  of  the 
affections,  they,  in  the  one  case,  exclude  sin  from  the 
affections  altogether,   and  in  the  other  affirm  the 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  189 

doctrine  of  Pelagianism.  But  if  by  the  will  they  mean 
something  different  from  either  of  the  above  defini- 
tions, then  I  frankly  confess  I  know  not  what  they 
mean.  Should  they,  however,  change  their  ground, 
and  place  the  seat  of  this  depravity  in  the  constitution 
of  man's  moral  nature,  as  it  exists  anterior  to  any  act 
of  volition,  then  in  that  case  they  throw  the  subject 
back  on  the  old  ground  of  natural  impotency ;  for  to 
talk  of  a  natural  power  to  change  the  moral  constitu- 
tion, as  it  existed  prior  to  choice,  and  which  constitu- 
tion must,  by  the  law  of  its  nature,  exercise  a  control- 
ling influence  over  the  mind,  is  the  same  as  to  talk 
of  a  natural  power  to  alter  one's  own  nature,  or  to 
unmake  and  remake  himself  In  this  case  we  must 
have  supernatural  aid,  or  we  must  remain  as 
we  are. 

We  shall  not  be  fully  prepared  to  judge  correctly 
on  this  subject  until  we  have  examined  one  more  pre- 
liminary question,  viz.,  What  is  the  precise  meaning 
that  we  are  to  attach  to  the  terms  natural  and  moral 
ahiUty^  as  used  by  the  Calvinists  ?  To  ascertain  this, 
I  have  examined  such  authors  as  I  have  had  access 
to,  with  care;  and  I  have  been  particular  to  consult 
recent  authors,  that  I  might  not  be  accused  of  charg- 
ing old  and  exploded  doctrines  upon  our  opposers ; 
and  various  authors,  that  I  might  ascertain  any  varie- 
ties that  appertain  to  the  different  Calvinistic  schools. 
In  particular,  the  author  of  "  Views  in  Theology  ;" 
Dr.  Griffin,  in  a  late  work  on  "Divine  Efliciency;" 
Rev.  Tyler  Thatcher,  of  the  Hopkinsian  school ;  and 
a  doctrinal  tract,  entitled,  "  Man  a  Free  Agent  without 
the  Aid  of  Divine  Grace,"  written,  it  is  presumed,  by 
one  of  the  divines  of  the  New-Haven  school,  have 
been  consulted.     There  is  among  them  all  a  remark- 


190  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

able  uniformity  on  this  point.  If  I  understand  them, 
the  substance  of  what  they  say  is,  "Natural  power 
consists  in  the  possession  of  understanding,  con- 
science, and  will ;  and  moral  power  is  the  exercise 
of  these  faculties."  Mr.  Thatcher  says  this  in  so  many 
words.  The  tract  alluded  to  gives  this  definition  of 
natural  power.  Dr.  Griffin  says  "their  [sinners'] 
faculties  constitute  a  natural  ability,  that  is,  a  full 
power  to  love  and  serve  God,  if  their  hearts  are  well 
disposed."  It  certainly  must  appear,  at  the  first 
glance,  very  singular  to  every  mind  not  embarrassed 
by  theory,  that  either  the  possefsiofi  of  faculties  or 
the  exercise  of  faculties  should  be  called  poioer.  The 
idea  of  poiver  is  supposed,  by  the  best  philosophical 
writers,  to  be  undefinable,  from  the  fact  that  it  is  a 
simple  idea ;  but  here,  strange  to  tell,  we  have  it  ana- 
lyzed in  two  different  forms.  Faculties  are  power — 
the  exercise  of  faculties  is  power.  Now,  although  we 
ciinnot  define  power,  every  one  doubtless  has  a  clear 
conception  of  it ;  and  I  humbly  conceive  that  the 
common  sense  of  every  man  will  decide  that  neither 
of  the  above  definitions  embraces  the  true  idea  of 
power.  The  exercise  of  faculties  implies  power,  it  is 
granted  ;  but  every  one  must  see  that  it  is  not  power 
itself.  And  although  the  faculties  of  the  mind  are 
sometimes  called  the  powers  of  the  miild,  by  a  kind 
of  borrowed  use  of  the  term  power,  just  as  the  limbs 
or  muscles  are  called  the  poivers  of  the  body,  yet  it 
requires  very  little  discrimination  to  see  that  as  we 
may  possess  these  powers  of  the  body  entire,  and  yet 
they  be  defective  from  some  cause,  as  to  some  of  their 
appropriate  functions,  so  we  may  possess  these  powers 
or  faculties  of  mind  entire,  and  yet  they  may  be  de- 
fective in  that  moral  strength  necessary  to  a  holy 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  191 

choice.  Hence  the  possession  of  these  faculties  does 
not  even  imply  power  adequate  to  a  holy  choice ; 
much  less  are  they  poioer  itself.  I  marvel  therefore 
at  these  definitions  of  moral  and  natural  power,  and 
am  thereby  confirmed  in  the  opinion  advanced  in  my 
former  number,  viz.,  "  That  the  whole  of  this  dis- 
tinction (of  natural  and  moral  ability)  and  the  reason- 
ing from  it  proceed  on  the  ground  of  a  most  unphi- 
losophical  analysis  of  mind  and  an  unwarranted 
definition  of  terms."  This  may  seem  a  strong  state- 
ment from  so  humble  an  individual  as  myself,  in  view 
of  the  many  able  minds  that  have  adopted  the  opinions 
here  opposed.  But  neither  their  opinion  nor  mine 
will  weigh  much  in  this  controversy  except  as  sus- 
tained by  reasonable  arguments  ;  and  by  such  argu- 
ments the  present  writer  expects  to  stand  or  fall. 
Look  then,  reader,  to  both  sides  of  this  subject.  Dr. 
Griffin  himself  seems  to  be  at  a  loss  how  to  explain 
himself  on  this  subject.  When  he  wishes  to  oppose 
the  New-Haven  divines,  and  guard  against  their  error, 
he  says,  "  If  you  mean  by  power  an  ability  that  works 
without  divine  efficiency,  I  hope  I  shall  be  the  last  to 
believe  that."  "  And  every  body  knows  that  the  mass 
of  the  New-England  divines,  from  the  beginning,  have 
acknowledged  no  such  doctrine." 

And  why  is  divine  efficiency  necessary  ?  Because 
man  has  no  ability  that  will  "work"  without  it. 
Thus,  the  moment  he  sets  up  a  guard  against  Pela- 
gianism,  he  throws  himself  back  either  upon  our 
doctrine,  or  upon  the  old  Calvinistic  doctrine  of 
"native  impotency."  There  is  no  standing  place 
anywhere  else.  The  New-Haven  divines  are  right, 
if  natural  ability  is  right ;  and  the  time  cannot  be  far 
distant  when  the  love  of  consistency  will  drive  all, 


192  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

who  hold  to  natural  ability  either  on  to  the  New 
Divinity  ground,  or  back  to  old  Calvinism.  From 
this  remark  the  reader  will  see  how  much  depends, 
if  my  views  are  correct,  upon  the  proper  adjustment 
of  this  question.  It  is  in  fact  the  turning  point,  which 
is  to  give  a  character  to  the  theology  of  the  churches. 
Let  us  not  then  be  in  haste  to  pass  over  it.  Hear  Dr. 
Griffin  farther.  "  Now  if  you  ask  me  what  is  that 
power  which  is  never  exerted  without  divine  effi- 
ciency, I  can  only  say  that,  in  the  account  of  the 
divine  Mind,  it  is  the  proper  basis  of  obligation,  and 
therefore,  by  the  decision  of  common  sense,  must  be 
called  a  power."  The  doctor  had  a  little  before  told 
us  that  this  power  was  faculties — he  is  not  satisfied 
with  this ;  and  what  well  instructed  mind,  like  the 
doctor's,  could  be?  It  is  something  that  forms  the 
'^  basis  of  obligation,"  he  knows  not  what  it  is.  He 
merely  infers  there  is  such  a  power,  because  men  are 
held  responsible.  But  this  inference  will  flow  quite 
as  naturally  by  taking  the  Arminian  ground  of  gra- 
cious ability,  and  save  the  other  difficulties  beside. 
At  any  rate,  it  will  save  the  absurdity  of  holding  to 
an  ability  that  will  not  "work"  without  being 
strengthened  by  divine  aid,  and  yet  that  this  same 
ability  is  sufficient  for  all  purposes  of  obligation  with- 
out that  aid. 

We  shall  find  equal  difficulty  if  we  take  up  and 
examine  this  definition  of  moral  power.  It  is  "  the 
exercise  of  natural  power."  But  these  same  writers 
tell  us  that,  while  we  have  this  natural  power  sufficient 
without  divine  grace  to  form  a  basis  of  obligation,  "  we 
are  entirely  dependant  upon  God's  grace  for  moral 
power" — in  other  words,  according  to  the  definition 
of  moral  power,  we  are  dependant  upon  grace  for  the 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  193 

exercise  of  our  natural  power ;  and  since  natural 
power  means  the  faculties  of  the  understanding,  will, 
and  conscience,  the  statement  is  simply  and  evidently 
this :  we  are  dependant  upon  divine  grace  for  the  ex- 
ercise of  our  understanding,  conscience,  and  will,  in 
making  a  holy  choice.  Why  ?  Because  the  under- 
standing, conscience,  and  will  are  so  depraved  by 
nature  that  it  is  not  in  their  nature  to  "  work"  in  this 
exercise  without  this  divine  grace.  Is  not  this  hold- 
ing the  gracious  ability  after  all  ?  Is  it  singular  then 
that  Dr.  Griffin  should  say,  in  another  place — "  They 
(sinners)  are  bound  to  go  forth  to  their  work  at  once, 
but  they  are  not  bound  to  go  alone  :  it  is  their 
privilege  and  duty  to  cast  themselves  instantly  on 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  not  to  take  a  single  step  in  their 
own  strength  ?"  Or  is  it  any  wonder  that  the 
Christian  Spectator  should  say,  that  "  this  statement 
of  Dr.  Griffin  brings  him  directly  on  the  ground  of 
evangelical  Arminianism  ?"  And  is  this  the  ability 
that  "  the  mass  of  the  New-England  divines  have  held 
to  from  the  beginning  ?"  Not  exactly.  They  only 
slide  over  on  this  ground  occasionally,  when  they  are 
pressed  hard  with  Pelagianism  on  the  one  hand,  and 
the  old  doctrine  of  passivity  on  the  other.  For  the 
truth  is,  as  before  remarked,  they  have  not  a  single 
point  to  balance  themselves  upon  between  these  two 
only  as  they  light  upon  our  ground.  There  is  still 
another  difficulty  in  this  moral  power,  as  it  is  called. 
It  implies  the  absurdity,  that  power  to  obey  God  is 
obedience  itself;  for  a  righ  exercise  of  our  natural 
powers  is  obedience.  But  the  right  exercise  of  our 
natural  power  is  moral  power — therefore 

Our  moral  power  to  obey  God  is  obedience ! !   And 
this  will  give  us  a  clew  to  the  proper  understanding 
9 


194  cALviMync  contkoversv. 

of  that  oft-repeated  Calvinistic  saying—"  You  have 
power  to  obey  God,  if  your  heart  is  righdy  dis- 
posed," or  in  short  hand — "  You  can  if  you  will." 
Now  the  verb  tvill  here  evidently  means  the  right 
exercise  of  the  natural  faculties — that  is,  as  shown 
above,  it  means  obedience.  Hence  the  whole  and 
proper  meaning  of  this  notable  saying  is — "  You  have 
power  to  obey  God,  if  you  obey  hi?JiJ''  "  You  ca?i  if 
you  cZo."  This  is  a  sort  of  logic  which,  when  scanned 
down  to  its  naked  character,  one  would  get  as  little 
credit  in  refuting,  as  its  abetters  are  entitled  to  for  its 
invention  and  use.  And  yet  this  is  the  logic  which, 
in  its  borrowed  and  fictitious  costume,  has  led  thou- 
sands in  our  land  to  suppose  that  Calvinism,  as  it  is 
now  modified,  is  the  same,  or  nearly  the  same,  with 
Methodism. 

There  is  still  another  striking  solecism  necessarily 
connected  with  this  definition  of  power.  It  supposes 
it  to  have  no  actual  existence  until  the  necessity  for 
it  ceases ;  for  in  the  order  of  cause  and  eifect, 
natural  jpower  effects  the  act  of  obedience  ;  and  this 
effect  of  natural  power,  producing  obedience,  gives 
existence  to  moral  power.  Thus  we  have  power 
to  obey,  superadded  to  the  power  that  has  actually 
obeyed  !  If,  however,  Calvinists  say  this  is  treating 
the  subject  unfairly,  because  their  very  definition 
shows  that  they  do  not  mean  by  it  any  thing  which 
enables  man  to  obey — I  answer  that  my  reasoning 
went  upon  the  ground  that  it  was  what  they  call  it — 
foiver  ;  and  if  they  do  not  mean  power,  that  is  only 
acknowledging  the  position  I  started  upon,  that  this 
Calvinistic  power  is  no  power  at  all.  And  here  I  ask, 
in  the  name  of  candour,  What  is  the  use  of  calling 
things  by  wrong  names?     What  confusion  and  error 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVKRSi'.  196 

may  not  be  introduced  by  applying  common  and  well 
defined  terms  in  such  a  manner  that,  when  the  things 
to  which  they  are  applied  are  defined,  it  is  seen  that 
the  terms  thus  applied  are  worse  than  useless ;  they 
directly  mislead  the  mind  !  It  is  the  direct  way  to 
bring  Christian  theology  and  Christian  ministers  into 
distrust  and  reproach. 

One  thought  more  with  respect  to  this  moral 
power,  and  I  will  pass  on.  The  doctrine  of  Calvinism 
is,  if  I  understand  it,  that  God  controls  the  natural 
power  of  men  by  means  of  their  moral  power.  This 
Fome  of  them  expressly  affirm.  And  to  show  that  I 
am  not  mistaken  with  respect  to  the  others,  let  the 
reader  carefully  attend  to  the  following  considerations. 
What  is  it  secures  the  fulfilment  of  the  divine  decrees, 
in  respect  to  the  elect  and  the  reprobate  ?  Why  do 
not  some  of  the  reprobates,  in  the  use  of  natural 
ability,  repent  and  get  to  heaven  ?  Because  they  have 
not  the  moral  power.  Why  do  not  some  of  the  elect, 
in  the  use  of  the  same  ability,  fall  into  sin  and  finally 
perish  ?  Because  God  makes  and  keeps  them  willing 
in  the  day  of  his  power — that  is,  he  irresistibly  imparts 
to  them  this  moral  power.  Thus,  by  means  of  this, 
which  he  keeps  in  his  own  hands,  he  executes  his 
decrees ;  for  God,  of  set  purpose,  so  constituted  this 
natural  power,  that  it  does  not  "  work"  without  divine 
efficiency.  By  moral  power,  therefore,  natural  power 
is  controlled.  Now,  to  say  nothing  here  of  the 
absurdity  of  efficiently  and  irresistibly  controlling  one 
power  by  another,  and  yet  calling  that  other  the 
essence  of  free  agency,  and  the  basis  of  obhgation — 
look  at  the  absurdity  in  another  point  of  view.  Since 
moral  power  is  the  exercise  of  natural  power,  the 
former  must  be  the  effect  of  the  latter.     And  since, 


196  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.       ' 

according  to  Calvinism,  natural  power  is  con  trolled  by 
moral  power,  it  follows  conclusively,  that  the  effect 
controls  its  cause  !  !  And  since  the  cause  must  act 
before  the  effect  is  produced,  it  follows  that  the  effect, 
before  it  has  an  existence,  acts  upon  its  cause  to  pro- 
duce its  own  existence  !  !  !  This  is  certainly  a  nuUi- 
fication  of  both  cause  and  effect.  Such  are  some 
of  the  difficulties  of  these  definitions  of  power — 
definitions  as  contrary  to  the  common  understandings 
of  men,  and  the  common  laws  of  language,  as  they  are 
to  sound  philosophy — definitions  which,  if  they  were 
always  understood  when  the  terms  were  used,  would 
make  the  propositions  in  which  these  terms  are  found 
sound  very  differently  to  the  common  ear.  I  trust 
therefore  it  has  been  made  to  appear  that  '•  this  dis- 
tinction of  natural  and  moral  abihty,  and  the  reason- 
ings upon  it,  are  founded  on  a  most  unphilosophical 
analysis  of  mind  and  an  unwarranted  definition  of 
terms ;"  and  that,  after  all  the  efforts  of  the  Calvinists 
to  find  out  another  alternative,  they  will  be  under  the 
necessitf^,  if  they  would  be  consistent,  either  of  going 
back  to  the  old  Calvinistic  ground  of  remediless 
im potency,  or  of  advancing  on  to  the  Pelagian  ground 
of  the  New  Divinity ;  or  they  must  accept  of  the 
Arminian  theory  of  gracious  ability.  And  that  the 
reader  may  be  prepared  to  make  his  selection,  I  will 
here  remind  him  of  the  arguments  adduced  in  favour 
of  the  latter  doctrine  in  the  last  number,  while  I  next 
proceed  to  answer  more  specifically  the  objections 
that  have  been  urged  against  it,  which,  however,  for 
an  obvious  reason,  must  be  withheld  until  the  next 
number. 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  197 

NUMBER  XII. 

OBJECTIONS    TO    GRACIOUS    ABILITY    ANSWERED. 

In  consulting  different  authors  to  find  the  strongest 
objections  that  have  been  urged  against  our  doctrine 
of  abihty  by  grace,  I  have  fixed  upon  the  doctrinal 
tract,  already  alluded  to,  entitled,  "  Man  a  Free  Agent 
without  the  Aid  of  Divine  Grace,"  as  concentrating  in 
a  small  compass,  and  in  a  clear  and  able  manner,  the 
sum  total  of  these  objections.  I  may  not  follow  the 
precise  order  of  this  writer,  and  possibly  shall  pass 
over  some  of  his  remarks  as  of  minor  importance  ;  but 
the  substance  of  his  reasoning  shall  receive  such  notice' 
as  I  shall  be  able  to  give  it. 

1.  The  first  objection  is,  in  substance,  this  : — that 
without  being  a  free  agent  man  cannot  be  man;  that 
free  agency  in  fact  enters  into  the  very  definition  of  an 
intelligent,  morally  responsible  being ;  and  therefore 
he  must  be  such  by  nature. 

This  objection  gains  all  its  plausibility  from  the 
writer's  definition  of  free  agency.  "  It  consists,"  he 
says,  "  in  the  possession  of  understanding,  conscience^ 
and  loillP  Now  we  grant  that  the  being  who  pos- 
sesses these  is  an  intelligent  voluntary  agent.  But 
these  faculties,  as  we  have  seen,  may  be  disordered, 
so  that,  for  all  holy  purposes,  they  may  be  defective. 
The  understanding  may  be  darkened,  the  conscience 
may  be  seared,  the  power  to  choose  good  may  be 
weakened  either  positively  or  relatively.  Liberty  is 
a  distinct  faculty  of  the  soul ;  and  as  such  is  as  sub- 
ject to  derangement  as  any  other  mental  susceptibility. 
It  has,  we  say,  sufiered  materially  by  the  fall ;  so  that 
man  has  not  his  original  aptitude  or  facility  to  good. 
And  whether  we  consider  this  as  a  weakness  apper- 
taining directly  to  the  faculty  of  the  will  itself,  or 


198  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

whether  we  consider  it  a  relative  weakness,  (which  is 
probably  the  more  philosophical,)  resulting  from  the 
loss  of  a  moral  equilibrium  in  the  mind,  by  reason 
of  the  uncontrolled  sway  of  the  passions,  in  either 
case  the  primary  cause  and  the  practical  result  are 
the  same.  Sin  has  perverted  the  soul,  and  given  it 
an  unholy  declination  from  righteousness  to  an  extent 
which  none  but  God  can  rectify.  With  this  view 
of  the  subject,  the  writer  may  call  a  man  a  free  agent 
if  he  pleases  ;  but  he  is  only  free  to  unrighteousness, 
and  not  to  holiness. 

Our  objector  was  aware  that  his  argument  might 
be  disposed  of  in  this  way  ;  and  hence  in  a  note  he 
says,  "  Some  writers  speak  of  man,  in  his  natural 
state,  as  free  only  to  evil.  But  in  what-  does  such 
freedom  diifer  from  mere  instinct?  With  no  power 
to  do  otherwise,  how  is  he  who  murders  a  fellow 
creature  more  criminal  than  the  tiger,  or  even  a  fall- 
ing rock  that  destroys  him?"  The  fallacy  of  this 
argument  consists  chiefly  in  a  misrepresentation  of  our 
theory*  Instead  of  holding  that  man  "  has  no  power 
to  do  otherwise,"  we  believe,  as  much  as  this  author, 
that  man  has  ample  power  at  his  command  to  do 
otherwise ;  but  that  this  power  is  of  grace,  and  not 
of  nature.  Any  farther  supposed  difficulties  growing 
out  of  this  view  of  the  subject  will  be  explained,  I 
trust  satisfactorily,  as  we  advance.* 

*  A  man  was  afflicted  with  the  hydrophobia.  When  his  parox- 
ysms were  coming  on  he  was  aware  of  it,  and  gave  warning  to 
his  friends  to  be  on  their  guard,  that  he  might  not  injure  them. 
Suppose,  however,  he  knew  of  a  sure  remedy,  but  voluntarily 
neglected  to  avail  himself  of  it.  "Would  he  not  in  that  case  be 
guilty,  not  only  of  all  the  evils  that  might  result  to  others  from 
his  malady,  but  also  of  self-murder  7  And  yet  tliis  man's  mad- 
ness was  entirely  beyond  the  direct  control  of  his  Tv'ill. 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  199 

2.  "  EA^ery  man  is  conscious  that  he  possesse's  the 
faculties  which  constitute  free  agenc}^"  Here  again 
we  must  keep  in  view  the  writer's  definition.  "We 
shall  find  no  difliculty  in  granting  that  every  man  is 
conscious  that  he  possesses  the  faculties  of  under- 
standing, conscience,  and  will ;  but  that  these,  unaided 
by  grace,  constitute  man  free  to  a  holy  choice,  is 
denied;  and  this  is  the  very  question  in  debate. 
To  affirm  it  therefore  in  argument  is  begging  the 
question.  ^, 

If,  however,  the  author  means  to  say,  as  his  reason- 
ing on  this  point  seems  to  imply,  that  man  is  conscious 
of  being  a  free  agent,  in  the  responsible  sense  of  the 
term,  this  is  also  granted ;  but  then  this  does  not 
touch  the  question  whether  this  power  is  of  grace  or 
of  nature.  But,  says  the  writer,  "  When  man,  under 
the  influence  of  grace,  does  choose  the  good,  he  is  not 
conscious  of  any  new  faculty  or  power  to  choose,  but 
only  he  uses  that  power  in  a  different  manner.  The 
power  or  faculty  which  chooses  evil  and  which 
chooses  good  is  the  same  power  differently  used." 
Whoever  disputed  this  ? — understanding  by  powef*a 
faculty  of  the  soul,  as  this  author  evidently  does. 
We  all  acknowledge  that  the  soul  gets  no  new  facul- 
ties by  grace ;  but  we  believe  that  the  mind,  in  the 
exercise  of  its  natural  faculties,  is  assisted  by  grace 
to  make  a  right  choice.  But,  says  the  writer,  in  this 
connection,  "  Power  to  choose  between  two  objects  is 
power  to  choose  either."  If  the  writer  means  to  say 
that  power  to  choose  either  the  one  or  the  other  of  two 
objects  is  power  to  choose  either — this  is  an  identical 
proposition  :  it  is  only  saying.  If  a  thing'  is,  it  is. 
But  if  he  means  to  say,  when  two  objects  are  presented 
to  the  mind,  and  the  mind  finds  itself  possessed  of  a 


200  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

power  to  attach  itself  voluntarily  to  one,  that  there- 
fore it  has  the  same  power  to  attach  itself  to  the  other, 
this  is  denied ;  and  as  no  proof  is  given  or  pretended 
\Y  the  objector,  nothing  but  a  denial  is  necessary. 
On  this  point  the  founder  of  the  Calvinistic  school 
was  undoubtedly  correct — philosophically  and  theo- 
logically correct — when  he  said,  "  Man  has  not  an 
equally  free  election  of  good  and  evil." 

But  that  I  may  meet  this  objection  founded  on  con- 
sciousness full  in  the  face,  I  am  prepared  to  assert, 
and  I  think  prove,  that  man,  so  far  from  being  con- 
scious that  he  has  by  nature  adequate  power  to  serve 
Godj  is  conscious  of  the  very  reverse  of  this.  What 
truly  awakened  sinner  has  not  a  deep  conviction  of 
his  utter  helplessness  ?  How  many  experiences  of  in- 
telligent and  pious  Calvinists  could  I  quote  on  this 
point  ?  As  a  specimen  take  that  of  the  Rev.  David 
Brainerd,  who  stands  high  in  the  church,  not  only 
among  Calvinists,  but  among  all  Christians  who  know 
him.  I  quote  a  passage  from  his  experience  quoted 
by  Dr.  Griffin  :  "I  saw  that  it  was  utterly  impossible 
for  me  to  do  any  thing  toward  helping  or  delivering 
myself  I  had  the  greatest  certainty  that  my  state 
was  for  ever  miserable  for  all  that  I  could  do,  and 
wondered  that  I  had  never  been  sensible  of  it  before." 
This  passage  is  very  strong  ;  too  unqualified,  perhaps, 
but  it  is  the  natural  language  of  a  weak  sinner,  con- 
vinced, as  all  must  be  before  they  can  become  strong, 
of  their  utter  helplessness  without  grace.  How  fully 
does  such  a  one  prove  the  truth  of  Scripture,  that  "  the 
natural  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of 
God,  for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him,  neither  can 
he  know  them,  for  they  are  spiritually  discerned ;" 
that  "no  man  knoweth  the  Father  but  the  Son,  and 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  201 

he  to  whom  the  Son  shall  reveal  him."  Hence  the 
necessity  that  "  the  Spirit  should  take  of  the  things  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  show  them  unto  them."  Indeed, 
but  for  this  darkness  and  weakness  of  the  understand- 
ing, the  penitent  sinner  would  not  feel  the  necessity 
of  the  agency  of  the  Spirit :  nor  would  it  in  fact  be 
necessary.  It  is  on  this  ground  that  the  doctrine  of 
natural  ability  has  led  to  the  idea  of  conversion  by 
riioral  suasion.  Thus  it  is  evident  that  a  man  may 
be  conscious  of  having  an  understanding,  but  at  the 
same  time  be  diS  fully  conscious  that  that  understand- 
ing is  too  dark  and  weak  for  holy  purposes,  unaided 
by  grace.  The  same  is  also  true  of  conscience. 
Experience  teaches  us  that  it  often  becomes  languid 
or  dead,  and  needs  quickening.  Hence  the  Christian 
often  prays — 

"  CLuick  as^the  apple  of  an  eye, 
O  God  !  my  conscience  make  ; 
Awake  my  soul  when  sin  is  nigh, 
And  keep  it  still  awake."     • 

Hence  also  we  pray  God  to  alarm  the  conscience 
of  sinners.  So  also  we  learn  from  Scripture  and  ex- 
perience that  the  conscience  needs  purging  "from 
dead  works,"  for  the  very  object  that  we  may  be  able 
"to  serve  God  with  filial  fear;"  we  learn  also  that  we 
may  have  "  defiled  consciences,"  "  weak  consciences," 
"  seared  consciences,"  (fee.  And  here  let  it  be  noticed, 
that  whether  we  understand  these  passages  as  apply- 
ing to  the  regenerate  or  unregenerate,  to  derived  de- 
pravity or  contracted  depravity,  the  argument  against 
the  objector  will  in  every  case  apply  with  resistless 
force,  viz.,  it  shows  that  this  faculty  of  the  soul  may 
become  so  disordered  as  to  have  its  original  healthy 
action  impaired,  and  that  in  this  case  nothing  can 

9* 


202  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

give  it  its  original  sensibility  and  strength  but  the  God 
who  made  it.  If  sin  does  disorder  the  conscience,  it 
disordered  Adam's :  and  if  he  begat  children  in  his 
own  moral  likeness,  then  his  posterity  had  a  similar 
conscience.  And  therefore  it  is  necessary  that,  as  by 
the  offence  of  the  first  Adam  sin  abounded,  so,  by  the 
obedience  of  the  second,  grace  may  abound  in  a  way 
directly  to  meet  the  evil. 

Let  us  next  examine  the  will.  Are  we  not  con- 
scions  that  this  also  is  weak  ?  How  repeatedly  does  the 
awakened  sinner  resolve  and  fail !  until  he  becomes 
deeply  impressed  that  he  is  "  without  strength  !"  He 
tries  to  keep  the  law,  but  cannot ;  for  he  finds  that 
"  the  carnal  mind  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God, 
neither  indeed  can  6e."  Hear  his  complaint !  and 
that  we  may  be  sure  of  taking  a  genuine  case,  let  us 
select  a  Bible  experience  from  Rom.  vii :  "  I  am  carnal, 
sold  under  sin."  (How  much  liberty  to  serve  God 
has  a  bond  slave  to  sin  ?)  "  That  which  I  do  I  allow 
not;  for  what  I  would  do  that  I  do  not,  but  what  I 
hate  that  do  I."  "  To  will  is  present  with  me,  but 
how  to  perform  that  which  is  good,  I  find  not,*'  (fee. 
(See  through  the  chapter.)  Hear  him  finally  exclaim, 
in  self-despair,  "  Who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body 
of  this  death  ?"  Why,  Saul  of  Tarsus  !  are  you  not 
conscious  that  you  have  understanding,  conscience, 
and  will?  Why  make  such  an  exclamation?  Who 
shall  deliver  you  ?  Deliver  yourself.  No  !  such 
philosophy  and  such  theology  were  not  known  to 
this  writer,  neither  as  a  penitent  sinner,  nor  as  an 
inspired  apostle.  "  I  thank  God,  through  Jesus 
Christ  my  Lord."  "  The  law  of  the  spirit  of  life,  in 
Christ  Jesus,  hath  made  me  free  from  the  law  [the 
controlling  power]  of  sin  and  death." 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY.  203 

Should  any  one  say  that  the  apostle  was  not 
describing  his  conversion  here,  but  his  experience  as 
a  Christian  beUever,  I  reply  :  If  any  thing,  that  wowldi 
make  tlie  passage  so  much  the  stronger  for  my  present 
purpose;  for  "if  these  things  are  done  in  the  green 
tree,  what  shall  be  done  in  the  dry  ?"  If  a  saint — one 
who  has  been  washed  and  renewed — finds  neverthe- 
less that  his  will  is  so  weak  as  to  need  the  continued 
grace  of  God  to  enable  him  to  do  the  things  that  he 
would,  much  more  is  this  true  of  the  unrenewed 
sinner.  If  this  account  of  the  apostle's  experience 
means  any  thing,  it  is  as  express  a  contradiction  of 
the  doctrine,  that  we  have  natural  strength  to  serve 
God  as  could  be  put  i?ito  loords.  And  I  am  bold  to 
say  that  this  is  the  experience  of  all  Christians.  And 
it  presents  an  argument  against  the  doctrine  of  natural 
ability  which  no  metaphysical  reasoning  can  over- 
throw— not  indeed  an  argument  to  prove  that  we  have 
not  understanding,  conscience,  and  will :  but  to  show 
that,  having  these  in  a  disordered  and  debilitated 
state,  grace  is  indispensable  to  aid  them,  in  order  to  an 
efficient  holy  clioice.  How  often  soever  the  judgment 
may  be  brought  to  a  preference  of  the  divine  law,  it 
will  as  often  be  carried  away  by  the  strength  of  the 
unholy  passions  until  it  is  delivered  by  the  grace  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  We  are  conscious,  therefore^ 
that  we  have  not  natural  power  to  keep  the  divine 
laio. 

3.  But  it  is  objected  again,  "  that  the  Scriptures 
require  us  to  use  our  natural  faculties  in  the  service 
of  God ;"  and  hence  the  inference  is,  that  these  facul- 
ties are  adequate  to  this  service. 

It  is  certainly  no  objection  to  our  doctrine,  that  the 
Scriptures,  draling  with  man  as  he  is,  require  him  to 


204  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

use  his  natural  powers  to  serve  God.  With  what 
other  powers  should  he  serve  him?  I  again  repeat 
that  the  question  is  not  whether  we  have  mental 
faculties^  nor  whether  man  may  or  can  serve  God 
with  these  faculties,  but  simply  whether  the  com- 
mand to  obey  is  given  independently  of  the  consi- 
derations of  grace.  We  say  it  is  not ;  and  in  proof 
refer  to  the  Scriptures,  which  give  a  promise  cor- 
responding with  every  command,  and  assurances 
of  gracious  aid  suited  to  every  duty — all  of  which 
most  explicitly  imply,  not  only  man's  need,  but  also 
the  ground  on  which  the  command  is  predicated. 
And  with  this  idea  agrees  the  alleged  condemna- 
tion so  often  presented  in  the  Scriptures :  "  This 
is  the  condemnation,  that  light  has  come  into  the 
world,  and  men  have  loved  darkness."  "  He  that 
believeth  not  is  condemned  already."  ''  But  they 
grieved  his  Holy  Spirit,  therefore  he  is  turned  to 
be  their  enemy."  "  How  shall  we  escape,  if  we 
neglect  so  great  salvation."  These,  and  many  other 
passages,  shov/  that  the  turning  point  of  guilt 
and  condemnation  is  not  so  much  the  abuse  of 
natural  powers,  as  the  neglect  and  abuse  of  grace 
bestowed. 

This  point  may  be  illustrated  by  Christ's  healing 
the  withered  hand.  He  commanded  the  man  to  stretch 
it  forth.  What  was  the  ground  of  that  command, 
and  what  was  implied  in  it  ?  The  ground  of  it  was, 
that  aid  would  be  given  him  to  do  it ;  otherwise  the 
command  to  stretch  forth  a  palsied  limb  would  have 
been  unreasonable.  And  yet  it  was  understood  that 
the  man  was  to  have  no  new  muscles,  or  nerves,  or 
bones,  to  accomplish  this  with ;  but  he  was  to  use 
those  he  had,  assisted,  as  they  would  be,  by  the  gra- 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY.  205 

cious  power  of  God.  So  man,  it  is  true,  is  commanded 
to  use  his  natural  powers  in  obeying  God ;  but  not 
without  divine  aid,  the  promise  of  which  is  always 
either  expressed  or  implied  in  the  command. 

4.  "The  Scriptures  ascribe  no  other  inability  to 
man  to  obey  God,  but  that  which  consists  in  or 
results  from  the  perversion  of  those  faculties  which 
constitute  him  a  moral  agent." 

It  is  true,  the  Scriptures  blame  man  for  his  inabi- 
lity— for  inability  they  certainly  ascribe  to  him,  and 
why  ?  Because  where  sin  abounded  grace  has  much 
more  abounded.  That  sinners  are  perverse  and 
unprepared  for  holy  obedience  up  to  this  hour  is 
undoubtedly  their  own  fault,  for  grace  has  been  be- 
forehand with  them.  It  met  them  at  the  very  thresh- 
old of  their  moral  agency,  with  every  thing  necessary 
to  meet  their  case.  It  has  dug  about  the  fruitless  fig 
tree.  It  has  laid  the  foundation  to  say  jusdy,  "  What 
more  could  I  have  done  for  my  vineyard  ?"  If  the 
sinner  has  rejected  all  this,  and  has  increased  his 
depravity  by  actual  transgression,  then  indeed  is  he 
justly  chargeable  for  all  his  embarrassments  and 
moral  weakness,  for  he  has  voluntarily  assumed  to 
himself  the  responsibility  of  his  native  depravity,  and 
he  has  added  to  this  the  accumulated  guilt  of  his 
repeated  sins. 

5.  It  is  farther  objected,  with  a  good  deal  of  confi- 
dence, that  Arminians,  after  all,  make  man's  natural 
power  the  ground  and  measure  of  his  guilt,  since  "  no 
part  of  his  free  agency  arises  from  furnished  grace, 
but  it  consists  simply  in  ability  to  use  or  abuse  that 
grace,  and  of  course  in  an  ability  distinct  from,  and 
not  produced  by  the  grace." 

Let  us  see,  however,  if  there  is  not  some  sophistry 


206  CALVIN ISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

covered  up  here.    Arminians  do  not  mean  that  man's 
ability  to  use  grace  is  independent  of  and  separate 
from  the  grace  itself.     They  say  that  man's  powers 
are  directly  assisted  by  grace,  so  that  through  this 
assistance   they  have   ability   or   strength   in    those 
'powers  which  before  they  had  not,  to  make  a  right 
choice.     To  talk  of  ability  to  use  gracious  ability,  in 
any  other  sense,  would  be  absurd.     It  would  be  like 
talking  of  strength  to  use  strength — of  being  able  to 
be  able.     This  absurdity,  however,  appears  to  me 
justly  chargeable  upon  the  natural   ability  theory, 
taken  in  connection  with  the  Scripture  account  of  this 
matter.    The  Scriptures  instruct  us  to  look  to  God  for 
strength ;    that  he  gives  us  "  power  to  become  the 
children  of  God;"   that  he  "strengthens  with  might 
in  the  inner  man,  that  we  may  be  a6/e,"  (fcc.     This 
theory,  however,  tells  us  that  we  have  an  ability  back 
of  this  ;  an  ability  on  which  our  responsibility  turns, 
and  by  means  of  which  we  can  become  partakers  of 
the  grace  of  the  gospel.    This  is  certainly  to  represent 
the  divine  Being  as  taking  measures  to  make  ability 
able,  and  adding  power,  to  make  adequate  strength 
sufficiently  strong.     Such  is  the  work  of  superero- 
gation which  this  theory  charges  upon  the  gospel,  for 
which  its  advocates  alone  are  answerable;    but  let 
them  not,  without  better  ground,  attempt  to  involve 
us  in  such  an  absurdity.    But  the  strongest  objections, 
in  the  opinion  of  those  who  differ  from  us,  are  yet  to 
come.     They  are  of  a  doctrinal,  rather  than  of  a  phi- 
losophical character,  and  are  therefore  more  tangible, 
and  will,  for  this  reason,  perhaps,  be  more  interesting 
to  the  generality  of  readers.     Let  us  have  patience, 
then,  to  follow  them  out. 

6.  Doctrinal  Objections. — On  the  ground  of  gra- 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  207 

cious  ability  it  is  objected  that,  1.  "As  the  con- 
sequence of  Adam's  fall,  Adam  himself  and  all  his 
posterity  became  incapable  of  committing  another 
sin."  2.  "Every  sinful  action  performed  in  this 
world,  since  the  fall  of  Adam,  has  been  the  effect  of 
supernatural  grace."  3.  "  Man  needed  the  grace  of 
God,  not  because  he  was  wicked,  but  because  he  was 
weak."  4.  "  The  moral  difference  between  one  man 
and  another  is  not  to  be  ascribed  to  God."  5.  "  The 
posterity  of  Adam  needed  no  Saviour  to  atone  for 
actual  sin."  6.  "  This  opinion  is  inconsistent  with 
the  doctrine  of  grace."  7.  "  There  can  be  no  guilt 
in  the  present  rebellion  of  the  infernal  regions." 
8.  "  Is  not  this  grace  a  greater  calamity  to  our  race 
than  the  fall  of  Adam?" 

I  have  thrown  these  objections  together,  and  pre- 
sented them  in  connection  to  the  reader,  for  the  reason 
that  they  all  rest  mainly  on  one  or  two  erroneous 
assumptions,  to  correct  which  will  be  substantially  to 
answer  them  all. 

One  erroneous  assumption  of  this  writer  is,  that 
"  there  is  no  free  agency  to  do  wrong,  which  is  not 
adequate  to  do  right."  Tliis  writer  seems  to  think 
this  a  self-evident  proposition,  which  needs  no  proof; 
for  although  he  has  used  it  in  argument  a  number  of 
times,  he  has  left  it  unsustained  by  any  thing  but  his 
naked  assertion.  This  proposition  has  already  been 
denied,  and  an  unqualified  denial  is  all  that  in  fair- 
ness can  be  claimed  by  an  antagonist  to  meet  an  un- 
qualified assertion.  Our  object,  however,  is  truth,  and 
not  victory.  Let  me  request  you  then,  reader,  to  look 
at  this  proposition.  Can  you  sec  any  self-evident 
proof  of  this  assertion  ?  If  the  Creator  should  give 
existence  to  an  intelligent  being,  and  infuse  into  his 


208  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

created  nature  the  elements  of  unrighteousness,  and 
give  to  his  faculties  an  irresistible  bias  to  sin.  and  all 
this  without  providing  a  remedy,  or  a  way  for  escape, 
then  indeed  all  our  notions  of  justice  would  decide 
that  such  a  being  ought  not  to  be  held  responsible. 
But  this  is  not  the  case  with  any  of  the  sinful  beings 
of  God's  moral  government.   Not  of  the  fallen  angels, 
for  they  had  original  power  to  stand,  but  abused  it 
and  fell — not  of  fallen  man,  for  in  the  first  place  his 
is  not  a  created  depravity ;   but,  in  the  case  of  Adam, 
it  was  contracted  by  voluntary  transgression  when  he 
had  power  to  stand  ;   and  in  the  case  of  his  posterity, 
it  is  derived  and  propagated  in  the  ordinary  course 
of  generation  :   and  in  the  second  place,  a  remedy  is 
provided  which  meets  the  exigencies  of  man's  moral 
condition,  at  the  very  commencement  of  his  being. 
This  it  does  by  graciously  preventing  the  imputation 
of  guilt  until  man  is  capable  of  an  intelHgent  survey 
of  his  moral  condition ;  for  "  as  by  the  offence  of  one, 
judgment  came  upon  all  men  unto  condemnation  * 
even  so,  by  the  righteousness  of  one,  the  free  gift  came 
upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  life."  And  when  man 
becomes  capable  of  moral  action,  this  same  gracious 
remedy  is  suited  to  remove  his  native  depravity,  and 
to  justify  him  from  the  guilt  of  actual  transgression  ; 
for  "  if  we  confess  our  sins,  he  is  faithful  and  just  to 
forgive  us  our  sins,  and  cleanse  us  from  all  unright- 
eousness."    It  does   not   appear,   then,   either   from 
the  obvious   character  of  the   proposition   itself,  or 
from  the  condition  of  sinful  beings,  that  "  the  same 
free  agency  which  enables  a  man  to  do  wrong  will 
enable  him  also  to  do  right."     Hence  it  is  not  true 
that  Adam,  by  the  fall,  lost  his  power  to  sin,  or  that 
there  is  now  no  sin  in  the  infernal  regions.      It  is 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  209 

true,  the  writer  tries  to  sustain  this  idea  farther,  by- 
asserting  that  "  that  ceases  to  be  a  moral  wrong  which 
is  unavoidable ;  for  no  being  can  be  held  responsible 
for  doing  what  is  unavoidable."  This  is  little  better, 
however,  than  a  reiteration  of  the  former  assumption. 
If  the  character  and  conduct  of  a  being  are  not  now, 
and  never  have  been  avoidable,  then  indeed  he  ought 
not  to  have  guilt  imputed  to  him.  But  to  say  that  there 
is  "no  moral  wrong"  in  the  case,  is  to  say  that  charac- 
ters and  actions  are  not  wrong  in  themselves,  even 
where  it  would  not  be  just  to  impute  guilt.  And  this 
is  an  idea  which  is  implied  also  in  another  part  of  this 
writer's  reasoning ;  for  he  tells  us  that,  according  to 
the  doctrine  of  gracious  ability,  "  every  sinful  action 
performed  in  this  world,  since  the  fall  of  Adam,  has 
been  the  effect  of  supernatural  grace ;"  and  that 
"  man  needed  the  grace  of  God,  not  because  he  was 
wicked,  but  because  he  was  weak,"  (fee.  This  reason- 
ing, or  rather  these  propositions,  are  predicated  on 
the  assumption,  that  there  is  no  moral  wrong  where 
there  is  no  existing  ability  to  do  right :  in  other 
words,  that  dispositions  and  acts  of  intelligent  beings 
are  not  in  themselves  holy  or  unholy,  but  are  so  only 
in  reference  to  the  existing  power  of  the  being  who 
is  the  subject  of  these  dispositions  and  acts. 

But  is  this  correct?  Sin  may  certainly  exist  where 
it  would  not  be  just  to  impute  it  to  the  sinner.  For 
the  apostle  tells  us  that  "  until  the  law  sin  was  in  the 
world ;"  and  yet  he  adds,  "  Sin  is  not  imputed  (he 
does  not  say  sin  does  not  exist)  where  there  is  no 
law."  The  fact  is,  there  are  certain  dispositions  and 
acts  that  are  in  their  nature  opposite  to  holiness, 
whatever  may  be  the  power  of  the  subject  at  the  time 
he  possesses  this  character  or  performs  these  acts. 


210  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

Sin  is  sin,  and  holiness  is  holinesSj  under  all  circum- 
stances. They  have  a  positive,  and  not  merely  a 
relative  existence.  And  although  they  have  not 
existence  abstract  from  an  agent  possessing  under- 
standing, conscience,  and  will,  still  they  may  have  an 
existence  abstractly  from  the  power  of  being  or  doing 
otherwise  at  the  time.  If  not,  then  the  new-born 
infant  has  no  moral  character,  or  he  has  power  to  be- 
come holy  with  his  first  breath.  Whether  the  subject 
of  this  imavoidable  sin  shall  be  responsible  for  it,  is  a 
question  to  be  decided  by  circumstances.  If  a  being 
has  had  power,  and  lost  it  by  his  own  avoidable  act, 
then  indeed  he  is  responsible  for  his  impotency — his 
very  weakness  becomes  his  crime,  and  every  act 
of  omission  or  commission  resulting  from  his  moral 
impotency  is  justly  imputed  to  him,  the  assertion 
of  our  objector  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 
Hence,  it  is  incorrect  to  say  there  is  now  "  no  guilt 
in  the  rebellion  of  the  infernal  regions."  It  is  of  little 
consequence  whether,  in  this  case,  you  assume  that 
all  the  guilt  is  in  the  first  act,  by  which  the  abiPity  to 
do  good  was  lost,  or  in  each  successive  act  of  sin, 
which  was  the  unavoidable  consequence  of  the  first. 
In  either  case,  the  acts  that  follow  are  the  measure 
of  the  guilt ;  and  hence,  according  to  the  nature 
of  the  mind,  the  consciousness  of  guilt  will  be  con- 
stantly felt,  as  the  acts  occur.  For  all  practical  pur- 
poses, therefore,  the  sense  of  guilt,  and  the  divine 
administration  of  justice,  will  be  the  same  in  either 
view  of  the  subject.  The  writer  supposes  the  case 
of  "a  servant's  cutting  off  his  hands  to  avoid  his  daily 
task,"  and  says,  "  for  this  he  is  to  blame,  and  ought 
to  be  punished  ;"  but  thinks  he  ought  not  to  be  pun- 
ished for  his  subsequent  deficiencies.    But  I  ask  How 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  211 

much  is  he  to  blame,  and  to  what  extent  should  he  be 
punished  ?  His  guilt  and  punishment  are  to  be  mea- 
sured, certainly,  by  the  amount  of  wrong  he  has  done 
his  master — that  is,  by  every  act  of  omission  con- 
sequent upon  this  act,  which  rendered  these  omissions 
unavoidable.  Therefore  he  is  justly  punishable  for 
every  act  of  omission  ;  and  you  may  refer  this  whole 
punishment  to  the  first  act  exclusively,  or  to  all  the 
acts  separately  :  it  amounts  to  the  same  thing  in  the 
practical  administration  of  government  and  of  justice. 
Indeed,  to  say  that  each  succeeding  act  is  to  be 
brought  up  and  taken  into  the  estimate,  in  order  to 
fix  the  quantum  of  punishment,  is  to  acknowledge 
that  these  succeeding  acts  are  sins  ;  else  why  should 
they  be  brought  into  the  account  at  all,  in  estimating 
guilt  and  punishment  ?  Take  another  case.  The 
drunkard  destroys  or  suspends  the  right  use  of  his 
reason,  and  then  murders.  Is  he  to  be  held  innocent 
of  the  murder  because  he  was  drunk  ?  or  was  the 
whole  guilt  of  the  murder  to  be  referred  to  the  act  of 
getting  intoxicated  ?  If  you  say  the  former,  then  no 
man  is  to  be  punished  for  any  crime  committed  in  a 
fit  of  intoxication  ;  and  one  has  only  to  get  intoxi- 
cated in  order  to  be  innocent.  If  you  say  the  latter, 
then,  as  getting  drunk  is  the  same  in  one  case  as 
another,  evei^y  inebriate  is  guilty  of  murder,  and  what- 
ever other  crimes  drunkenness  may  occasion,  or  has 
occasioned.  Is  either  of  these  suppositions  correct  ? 
Shall  we  not  rather  say  that  the  inebriate's  guilt  is  to 
be  measured  by  the  aggregate  of  crimes  flowing  from 
the  voluntary  act  of  drowning  his  reason  ?^  And  so 
in  the  case  before  us.  Instead  then  of  saying  that  on 
our  principles  "  there  is  no  guilt  in  the  present  rebel- 
lion of  the  infernal  regions,"  I  would  say  that  their 


212  CALVIMSTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

present  rebellion  is  the  fruits  and  measure  of  their 
guilt.  Thus  we  see  that  a  being  who  has  had  power 
and  lost  it,  is  guilty  of  his  present  acts. 

And  by  examination  we  shall  find  that  by  how 
much  we  enhance  the  estimated  guilt  of  the  first  act, 
it  is  by  borrowing  so  much  from  the  acts  of  iniquity 
which  follow.  And  will  you  then  turn  around  and 
say  the  acts  which  follow  have  no  guilt  ?  Why  have 
they  no  guilt  ?  Evidently  because  you  have  taken 
the  amount  of  that  guilt,  and  attached  it  to  the  first 
act.  And  does  this  make  these  acts  in  themselves 
innocent  ?  The  idea  is  preposterous.  As  well  may 
you  say  that  the  filthy  streams  of  a  polluted  fountain 
are  not  impure  in  themselves,  because  but  for  the 
fountain  they  would  not  be  impure,  as  to  say  that 
the  current  of  unholy  volitions  which  unavoidably 
flows  from  a  perverted  heart  is  not  unholy  and 
criminal. 

Another  clearly  erroneous  assumption  of  this  writer 
is,  that  if  it  would  be  unjust  for  the  divine  Being  to 
leave  his  plan  unfinished^  after  it  is  begun,  the  ivhole 
plan  must  be  predicated  on  justice,  and  not  on  grace. 
It  is  true,  he  has  not  said  this,  in  so  many  words,  but 
his  reasoning  implies  it.  For  he  says  this  scheme  of 
gracious  ability  "annihilates  the  whole  doctrine  of 
grace."  Because  God,  if  he  held  man  accountable, 
was  bound  to  give  him  this  ability,  as  a  matter  of 
justice ;  hence  it  is  not  an  ability  by  grace,  but  an 
ability  by  justice.  The  whole  of  this  reasoning,  and 
much  more,  goes  upon  the  principle,  that  the  com- 
pletion of  a  plan  of  grace,  after  it  is  begun,  cannot  be 
claimed  on  the  scale  of  justice.  But  is  this  true  ?  Is 
not  a  father,4fter  he  has  been  instrumental  of  bringing 
a  son  into  ^e  world,  bound  in  ji^ slice  to  provide  for 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  213 

and  educate  him  ?  And  yet  does  not  the  son  owe  a  debt 
of  gratitude  to  that  father  when  he  has  done  all  this? 
If  a  physician  should  cut  off  the  limb  of  a  poor  man, 
to  save  his  life,  is  he  not  bound  hi  justice,  after  he 
has  commenced  the  operation,  to  take  up  the  arteries 
and  save  the  man  from  dying  by  the  operation  ?  And 
if  he  should  not  do  it,  would  he  not  be  called  a  wanton 
and  cruel  wretch  ?    And  yet  in  both  these  cases  the 
persons  may  be  unworthy.    The  son  may  show  much 
obliquity  of  moral  principle,  and  yet  the  father  should 
bear  with  him,  and  discipline  him.     The  man  on 
whom  the  physician  operated  may  be  poor  and  per- 
verse.   Here  then  are  cases  in  which  justice  deniarids 
that  unmerited  favour  hegun  shoidd  he  continued, 
or  else  what  was  favour  in  the  commencement,  and 
what  would  be  favour  in  the  whole,  would  neverthe- 
less, by  its  incompleteness,  be  most  manifest  injustice. 
Such  is  the  state  of  the  question  in  respect  to  the 
divine  administration.     The  whole  race  of  man  had 
become  obnoxious  to  the  divine  displeasure,  in  their 
representative  and  federal  head,  by  reason  of  his  sin. 
This  is  expressly  stated  :    "  By  the  offence  of  one, 
judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation."    "  In 
Adam  all  die."     In  this  situation  we  may  suppose 
that  the  strict  justice  of  the  law  required  punishment 
in  the  very  character  in  which  the  offence  was  com- 
mitted.    Adam  personally  and  consciously  sinned  ; 
and  so,  according  to  justice,  he  must  suffer.     The 
prospective  generations  of  men,  existing  seminally  in 
him,  as   they  had  not  consciously   and  personally 
sinned,  could,  in  justice,  only  experience  the  effects 
of  the  curse  in  the  same  character  in  which  they 
sinned,  viz.,  passively  and  seminally,  unless  provision 
could  be  made,  by  which,  in  their  personal  existence, 


,414  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

they  might  free  themselves  from  the  effects  of  sin. 
Now  God,  in  the  plenitude  of  his  wisdom  and  grace, 
saw  fit  to  make  provision  for  a  new  probation  for 
man,  on  the  basis  of  a  covenant  of  grace,  the  different 
parts  of  which  are  all  to  be  viewed  together,  in  order 
to  judge  of  their  character.  In  this  covenant  Adam 
had  a  neio  trial ;  and  when  the  promise  was  made  to 
him  he  stood  in  the  same  relation  to  his  posterity  as 
he  did  when  he  sinned,  and  the  curse  was  out  against 
him.  If,  by  the  latter,  the  prospective  generations  of 
men  were  justly  cut  off  from  possible  existence,  by 
the  former  this  existence  was  mercifully  secured  to 
them.  If  by  the  corruption  of  the  race,  through  sin, 
the  possibility  of  salvation  was  cut  off,  on  all  known 
principles  of  administrative  justice,  by  the  provisions 
of  grace  the  possibility  of  salvation  was  secured  to  the 
whole  race  ;  and  this  possibility  implies  every  neces- 
sary provision  to  render  grace  available  and  eflicient, 
in  accordance  with  moral  responsibility.  If  "God, 
who  spared  not  his  own  Son,  but  freely  gave  him  up 
for  us  aiy  had  not  "  with  him  also  freely  given  us  all 
things"  necessary  for  our  salvation,  would  not  the 
divine  procedure  have  been  characterized  both  by 
lolly  and  injustice  ?  If  his  plan  of  grace  had  only  gone 
so  far  as  to  have  given  us  a  conscious  being,  without 
giving  us  the  means  of  making  that  existence  happy, 
would  it  not  have  been  wanton  cruelty  ?  And  yet, 
taking  the  whole  together,  who  does  not  see  that  it  is 
a  most  stupendous  system  of  grace,  from  the  founda- 
tion to  the  topstone  ?  Let  us  not  then  be  guilty  of  such 
manifest  folly  as  to  take  a  part  of  the  divine  adminis- 
tration, and  make  up  a  judgment  upon  that,  as  viewed 
independently  of  the  rest,  and  then  transfer  this 
abstract  character  to  the  whole.     As  in  chymical. 


CALVlNItJTIC    CONTROVERSY.  215 

combinations,  though  one  of  the  ingredients  taken 
alone  might  be  deleterious,  yet  the  compound  may  be 
nutritious  or  salutary,  so  in  the  new  covenaat,  if  we 
separate  legal  exactions  and  penalties  from  gracious 
provisions,  the  operations  of  the  former  may  be  unjust 
and  cruel,  yet  the  whole,  united  as  God  hath  com- 
bined them,  may  be  an  administration  of  unparalleled 
grace.  It  is  in  this  heavenly  combination  that  '•  mercy 
and  truth  are  met  together,  righteousness  and  peace 
have  kissed  each  other."  Now,  therefore,  "  if  we  con- 
fess our  sins,  he  is  faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us  our 
sins,"  for  on  this  ground  he  can  be  ^^just  and  the 
justifier  of  them  that  believe."  Although  justice  is 
thus  involved  in  the  system,  and  to  leave  out  part  of 
the  system  would  be  manifest  injustice,  yet  the  whole 
is  the  "  blessed  gospel ;"  "  the  gospel  of  the  grace  of 
God."  It  is  objected,  I  know,  that  the  idea  that,  but 
for  the  provisions  of  the  gospel,  man  would  not  have 
propagated  his  species,  is  fanciful  and  unauthorized 
by  Scripture.  The  Scriptures,  I  grant,  do  not  strike 
off  into  speculations  about  what  God  might  have  done 
or  would  have  done,  if  he  had  not  done  as  he  has. 
This  is  foreign  from  their  design  ;  and  I  am  perfectly 
willing  to  let  the  whole  stand  as  the  Scriptures  present 
it.  But  when  our  opponents  set  the  example  of  raising 
an  objection  to  what  we  think  the  true  system,  by 
passing  judgment  on  a  part,  viewed  abstractly,  we 
must  meet  them.  On  their  own  ground,  then,  I 
would  say  the  idea  that  man  would  have  been  allowed 
to  propagate  his  species,  without  any  provisions  of 
grace,  is  altogether  fanciful  and  unauthorized  by 
Scripture.  Will  it  be  said  that  it  seems  more  rea- 
sonable, and  in  accordance  with  the  course  of  nature, 
to  suppose  that  he  would  ?  I  answer.  It  seems  to  me 


216  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

more  reasonable,  and  in  accordance  with  the  course 
of  justice,  to  suppose  that  he  would  not.  Whoever 
maintains  that  the  personal  existence  of  Adam's  poste- 
rity was  not  implied  and  included  in  the  provisions 
of  grace,  in  the  new  covenant,  must  take  into  his 
theory  one  of  the  following  appendages: — he  must 
either  believe  that  the  whole  race  could  justly  be  con 
signed  to  personal  and  unavoidable  wo,  for  the  sin  of 
Adam,  or  that  all  could  be  justly  condemned  for  the 
sin  of  their  own  nature,  entailed  upon  them  without 
their  agency,  and  therefore  equally  unavoidable ;  or 
he  must  believe  that  each  would  have  a  personal  trial 
on  the  ground  of  the  covenant  of  works,  as  Adam  had. 
If  there  is  another  alternative,  it  must  be  some  system 
of  probation  which  God  has  never  intimated,  and 
man,  in  all  his  inventions,  has  never  devised.  Who- 
ever is  prepared  to  adopt  either  of  the  two  former  pro- 
positions is  prepared  to  go  all  lengths  in  the  doctrine  of 
predestination  and  reprobation  charged  upon  Calvin- 
ism in  the  sermon  that  gave  rise  to  this  controversy, 
and  of  course  will  find  his  system  subject  to  all  the 
objections  there  urged  against  it.  If  any  one  chooses 
to  adopt  the  third  alternative,  and  consider  all  the 
posterity  of  Adam  as  standing  or  falUng  solely  on  the 
ground  of  the  covenant  of  works,  such  a  one  need  not 
be  answered  in  a  discussion  purporting  to  be  a  "  Cah 
vinistic  controversy."  He  is  a  Socinian,  and  must 
be  answered  in  another  place.  All  that  need  be  done 
here  is  to  show  the  embarrassments  of  Calvinism 
proper^  the  utter  futility  of  all  its  changes  to  relieve 
itself  from  these  embarrassments,  unless  it  plunge  into 
Pelagianism  and  Socinianism,  or  rest  itself  upon  the 
Arminian  foundation  of  gracious  ability.  It  is  on 
this  latter  ground  we  choose  to  rest,  because  here,  and 


CALVIMSTIC    CONTROVERSY'.  217 

here  alone,  we  find  the  doctrines  of  natural  depravity, 
human  ability  and  responsibility,  and  salvation  by 
grace,  blending  in  beautiful  harmony. 

Having  noticed  some  of  the  erroneous  assumptions 
on  which  the  doctrinal  objections  to  our  theory  are 
based,  the  objections  themselves,  I  think,  may  all  be 
disposed  of  in  a  summary  way.  We  see,  on  our  plan, 
that,  1.  Adam  did  not  render  himself  incapable  of  sin- 
ning by  the  fall,  but  rather  rendered  himself  and  his 
posterity  incapable  of  any  other  moral  exercise  but 
what  was  sinful :  and  it  was  on  this  account  that  a 
gracious  ability  is  necessary,  in  order  to  a  second 
probation.  2.  Sin,  since  the  fall,  has  not  been  the 
result  of  supernatural  grace,  but  the  natural  fruit  of 
the  fall ;  and  supernatural  grace  is  all  that  has  coun- 
teracted sin.  3.  "Man  needed  the  grace  of  God," 
both  "  because  he  was  wicked,"  and  "  because  he  was 
weak."  4.  "  The  moral  difference  between  one  man 
and  another  is  to  be  ascribed  to  God."  How  any  one 
could  think  a  contrary  opinion  chargeable  upon  us  is 
to  me  surprising.  It  is  more  properly  Calvinism  that 
is  chargeable  with  this  sentiment.  Calvinism  says. 
Regeneration  is  a  right  choice.  It  says,  also,  that 
power  to  sin  implies  power  to  be  holy ;  and  of  course 
we  become  holy  by  the  same  power  as  that  by  which 
we  sin.  And  it  farther  says  that  the  power  is  of 
nature,  and  not  of  grace.  Now  let  the  reader  put  all 
these  together,  and  see  if  it  does  not  follow  most  con- 
clusively, that  "  the  moral  difference  between  one  man 
and  another  is  not  to  be  ascribed  to  God."  But,  on 
the  contrary,  we  say  the  sinful  nature  of  man  is 
changed  in  regeneration  by  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  5.  "  The  posterity  of  Adam"  did  "  need  a 
Saviour  to  atone  for  actual  sin."  For  actual  sin  is 
10 


218  CALVINISTIC    COiNTROVllRSY.  ^' 

the  result,  not  of  gracio.us  power,  as  this  author  sup- 
poses, but  of  a  sinful  nature  voluntarily  retained  and 
indulged.  If  our  opponents  charge  us  with  the  sen- 
timent, that  grace  is  the  cause  of  the  actual  sin  of 
Adam's  posterity,  because  we  hold  that  grace  was  the 
cause  of  their  personal  existence,  we  grant  that,  in 
that  sense,  grace  was  a  cause  without  which  the 
posterity  of  Adam  would  not  have  sinned.  But  if  this 
makes  God  the  author  of  sin,  by  the  same  rule  we 
could  prove  that  God  is  the  author  of  sin,  because  he 
created  moral  agents — and  if  there  is  any  difficulty 
here,  it  presses  on  them  as  heavily  as  on  us.  But 
in  any  other  sense,  grace  is  not  the  cause  of  sin. 
6.  "  This  opinion  is,"  as  we  have  seen,  perfectly  "  con- 
sistent with  the  doctrine  of  grace."  7.  "There  is" 
constant  "  guilt  in  the  present  rebellion  of  the  infernal 
regions."  8.  "  This  grace  is  a  greater"  blessing  "  to 
our  race  than  the  fall  of  Adam"  was  a  "  calamity ;"  for 
"  where  sin  abounded,  grace  did  much  more  abound." 
Thus  I  have  endeavoured  to  explain^  prove,  and 
defend  the  doctrine  of  gracious  ability,  a  doctrine 
always  maintained  in  the  orthodox  church,  until  the 
refinements  of  Calvinism  made  it  necessary  to  call  it 
in  question  ;  and  a  doctrine  on  which,  viewed  in  its 
different  bearings,  the  orthodox  Arminian  system 
must  stand  or  fall.  1  have  been  the  more  minute  and 
extended  in  my  remarks  from  this  consideration  :  and 
also  from  the  consideration  that  while  this  doctrine 
has  of  late  been  most  violently  assailed  by  all  classes 
of  Calvinists,  very  little  has  been  published  in  its  de- 
fence. If  the  reader  has  had  patience  to  follow  the 
subject  through,  he  is  now  perhaps  prepared  to  judge 
whether  our  holy  volitions  are  the  result  of  a  gracious 
ability  or  of  natural  power. 


CALVINISTIC  CONTROVERSY.  219 

Should  I  find  time  to  pursue  this  subject  farther,  it 
would  be  in  place  now  to  examine  the  doctrine  of 
regeneration ;  in  which  examination  the  nature  of 
inherent  depravity,  and  of  that  choice  which  is  con 
ditional  to  the  new  birth,  would  be  more  fully  noticed. 
"  This  will  1  do  if  God  permit." 


NUMBER  XIIL 

REGENERATION. 

An  important  error  in  any  one  cardinal  doctrine 
of  the  gospel  will  make  a  glaring  deformity  in  the  en- 
tire system.  Hence  when  one  of  these  doctrines  is 
marred  or  perverted,  a  corresponding  change  must 
be  made  in  most  or  all  of  the  others,  to  keep  up  the 
appearance  of  consistency. 

These  remarks  apply  with  special  emphasis  to  the 
doctrine  of  regeneration.  As  this  is  a  focal  point,  in 
which  many  other  leading  doctrines  centre,  this  doc- 
trine must  of  necessity  give  a  character  to  the  whole 
gospel  plan.  This  might  be  inferred  a  'priori  from 
the  knowledge  of  the  relation  of  this  to  the  other 
parts  of'  the  Christian  system,  and  it  is  practically 
illustrated  in  the  history  of  the  church.  There  are 
those  who  believe  that  by  the  various  terms  used  in 
Scripture  to  express  the  change  commonly  called  re- 
generation or  the  new  birth,  nothing  is  intended  but 
some  outward  ceremony,  or  some  change  of  opinion  in 
matters  of  speculative  belief  or  the  like.  Some  say 
it  is  baptism,  or  a  public  profession  of  faith  ;  others 
that  it  is  a  mere  speculative  renunciation  of  heathen 
idolatry,  and  an  acknowledgment  of  the  Christian  faith ; 
others  that  it  is  merely  a  reformed  life  ;  and  a  few 


'120  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

maintain  that  it  is  the  change  that  we  shall  undergo 
by  death,  or  by  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  These 
persons,  and  all  in  fact  who  make  the  new  birth  some- 
thing short  of  a  radical  change  of  heart,  are  obliged, 
for  consistency's  sake,  to  accommodate  the  other  doc- 
trines to  their  views  of  regeneration.  Hence  they  very 
generally  deny  constitutional  or  derived  depravity, 
the  inflexibility  and  rigorous  exactions  of  the  divine 
law,  the  destructive  character  of  sin,  the  atonement, 
the  supernatural  agency  of  the  Spirit  upon  the  human 
heart,  justification  by  faith,  and  the  like.  Thus  a 
radical  error  on  one  point  actually  leads  to  another 
gospel — if  gospel  it  may  be  called. 

It  does  not  come  within  the  scope  of  my  present 
design  to  enter  into  a  refutation  of  the  foregoing- 
errors.  But  from  the  disastrous  results  of  these  errors 
we  may  infer  the  importance  of  guarding  carefully, 
and  of  understanding  clearly,  the  Scripture  doctrine 
of  the  new  birth.  Even  where  the  error  is  not  so 
radical,  as  in  the  instances  above  alluded  to,  the 
evil  may  be  considerable,  and  in  some  cases  fatal. 

The  Arminians  and  Calvinists  agree  in  this  doc- 
trine, in  so  far  as  that  they  both  make  it  a  radical 
change  of  moral  nature,  by  the  supernatural'  agency 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  they  differ  in  respect  to  the 
order  in  which  the  several  parts  of  the  change  take 
place — in  respect  to  the  manner  and  degree  of  the 
agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  also  in  respect  to  the 
part  which  human  agency  has  in  the  accomplishment 
of  this  change.  And  in  some,  if  not  all  of  these 
points,  Calvinists  differ  as  much  from  each  other  as 
they  do  from  us. 

It  is  my  present  purpose  to  point  out  some  of  the 
more  prominent  Calvinistic  modes  of  stating  and 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  221 

explaining  this  doctrine,  with  the  difficulties  attending 
them :  after  which  I  shall  endeavour  to  present  and 
defend  what  we  believe  to  be  the  Scripture  doctrine 
of  regeneration. 

First  Theory. — The  notion  that  the  mind  is 
entirely  passive  in  this  change,  that  is,  that  nothing 
is  done  by  the  subject  of  it  which  is  preparative  or 
conditional,  or  in  any  way  co-operative  in  its  accom- 
plishment, has  been  a  prevailing  sentiment  in  the 
various  modifications  of  the  old  Calvinistic  school.  It 
is  not  indeed  pretended  that  the  mind  is  inactive, 
either  before  or  at  the  time  this  renovation  is  effected 
by  the  Holy  Spirit.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  said  that 
the  sinner  is  resisting  with  all  the  power  of  the  mind, 
and  with  all  the  obstinacy  of  the  most  inveterate 
enmity,  up  to  the  very  moment,  and  in  the  very  act 
of  conversion.  So  that  the  sinner  is  regenerated, 
not  only  without  his  co-operation^  but  also  in  spite 
of  his  utmost  resistance.  Hence  it  is  maintained 
that,  but  for  the  irresistible  influence  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  upon  the  heart,  no  sinner  would  be  converted. 

1.  One  of  the  leading  objections  to  this  view  of 
conversion  is,  that  it  is  inseparably  connected  with 
the  doctrine  of  particular  and  unconditional  election. 
The  two  reciprocally  imply  each  other,  and  must 
therefore  stand  or  fall  together.  But  this  doctrine 
of  particular  and  unconditional  election  has  been 
sufficiently  refuted,  it  is  hoped,  in  the  sermon  that 
gave  rise  to  this  controversy ;  if  so,  then  the  doctrine 
of  passivity  and  irresistible  grace  is  not  true. 

2.  Another  very  serious  difficulty  which  this  theory 
of  conversion  has  to  contend  with  is,  that  the  Scrip- 
tures, in  numerous  passages,  declare  that  the  Spirit 
of  God  may  be  resisted^  grieved^  qiienched^  and  utterly 


232  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

disregarded ;  and  that  the  grace  of  God  may  be 
abused,  or  received  in  vain.  The  passages  to  esta- 
bhsh  these  propositions  are  so  frequent  that  I  need  not 
stop  to  point  them  out.  But  if  this  be  so,  then  the 
grace  of  God  and  the  Spirit  of  grace  are  not  irresistible. 

3.  It  may  be  yet  farther  objected  to  this  doctrine 
of  the  mind's  passivity  in  conversion,  that  it  is  a  vir- 
tual denial  of  all  gracious  influence  upon  the  heart 
before  regeneration.  It  has  been  shown  in  previous 
numbers  that  man  was  not  able  to  comply  with  the 
conditions  of  salvation  without  grace — and  that  the 
gracious  influences  of  the  divine  Spirit  are  given  to 
every  sinner  previous  to  regeneration.  But  there 
would  be  no  necessity  for  this,  and  no  consistency  in 
it,  if  there  are  no  conditions  and  no  co-operation  on 
the  part  of  the  sinner  in  the  process  of  the  new  birth. 
Hence  the  advocates  of  this  doctrine  very  consistently 
maintain  that  the  first  act  of  grace  upon  the  heart  of 
the  sinner  is  that  which  regenerates  him.  Since  then 
this  theory  conflicts  with  the  Bible  doctrine  of  a 
gracious,  influence  anterior  to  conversion,  it  cannot 
be  admitted. 

4.  This  theory  of  regeneration  removes  all  con- 
ditions on  the  part  of  the  sinner  to  the  removal  of  the 
power  and  guilt  of  sin.  It  teaches  that  if  the  sinner 
should  do  any  thing  acceptable  to  God,  as  a  condition 
to  his  conversion,  it  would  imply  he  did  not  need 
converting ;  that  such  an  idea,  in  fact;  would  be  in- 
consistent with  the  doctrine  of  depravity,  and  irrecon 
cilable  with  the  idea  of  salvation  hy  grace.  And  this 
is  the  ground  on  which  the  old  Calvinists  have  so 
repeatedly  charged  us  with  the  denial  of  the  doctrines 
of  grace,  and  with  holding  that  we  may  be  justified 
by  our  works. 


CALVINbSTIC    CONTROVERSY.  223 

There  is  something  veiy  singular  in  these  notions 
respecting  the  necessity  of  unconditional  regenera- 
tion, in  order  that  it  may  be  by  grace.  These  same 
Calvinists  tell  us  that  the  sinner  can  repent,  and 
ought  to  repent,  and  that  the  Scriptures  require  it 
at  his  hand.  What !  is  the  sinner  able  and  obliged 
to  do  that  which  would  destroy  the  whole  economy 
of  grace !  which  would  blot  out  the  gospel  and 
nullify  the  atonement  itself?  Ought  he  to  do  that 
which  would  prove  him  a  practical  Pelagian  and 
an  operative  workmonger?  Is  he,  indeed,  accord- 
ing to  Calvinists  themselves,  required  in  Scripture 
to  do  that  which  would  prove  Calvinism  false,  and 
a  conditional  regeneration  true  ?  So  it  would  seem. 
Put  together  these  two  dogmas  of  Calvinism.  1.  The 
sinner  is  able,  and  ought  to  repent.  2.  The  idea 
that  the  sinner  does  any  thing  toward  his  regenera- 
tion destroys  the  doctrine  of  depravity  and  of  salva- 
tion by  grace.  I  say  put  these  two  together,  and 
you  have  almost  all  the  contradictions  of  Calvinism 
converged  to  a  focus — and  what  is  most  fatal  to 
the  system,  you  have  the  authority  of  Calvinism 
itself  to  prove  that  every  intelligent  probationer  on 
the  earth  not  only  has  the  abiltiy,  but  is  authori- 
tatively required  to  give  practical  demonstration 
that  the  system  is  false ! !  What  is  this  but  to  say, 
"  You  can,  and  you  cannot  f — if  you  do  not,  you 
will  be  justly  condemned — if  you  do,  you  will  ruin 
the  gospel  system,  and  yourself  with  it  ?  Where 
such  glaring  paradoxes  appear,  there  must  be  some- 
thing materially  wrong  in,  at  least,  some  parts  of  the 
system. 

5.  But  the  inconsistency  of  this  theory  is  not  its 
only,  and  certainly  not  its  most  inju  rious  characteristic. 


J 


234  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

In  the  same  proportion  as  men  are  made  to  believe 
that  there  are  no  conditions  on  their  part  to  their  re- 
generation, they  will  be  likely  to  fall  into  one  of  the 
two  extremes  of  carelessness  or  despair,  either  of 
which,  persisted  in,  would  be  ruinous.  I  cannot 
doubt  but  that,  in  this  way,  tens  of  thousands  have 
been  ruined.  We  should  infer  that  such  would  be 
the  result  of  the  doctrine,  from  only  understanding  its 
character  :  and  I  am  fully  satisfied  that,  in  my  own 
personal  acquaintance,  I  have  met  with  hundreds 
who  have  been  lulled  in  the  cradle  of  Antinomianism 
on  the  one  hand,  or  paralyzed  with  despair  on  the 
other,  by  this  same  doctrine  of  passive,  unconditional 
conversion.  Oalvinists,  it  is  true,  tell  us  this  is  the 
abuse  of  the  doctrine  ;  but  it  appears  to  me  to  be  the 
legitimate  fruit.  What  else  could  we  expect  ?  A 
man  might  as  well  attempt  to  dethrone  the  Mediator, 
as  to  do  any  thing  toward  his  own  conversion. 
Teach  this,  and  carelessness  ensues,  Antinomian 
feelings  will  follow — or  if  you  arouse  the  mind  by  the 
curse  of  Jhe  law,  and  by  the  fearful  doom  that  awaits 
the  unregenerate,  what  can  he  do  ?  Nothing  !  Hell 
rises  from  beneath  to  meet  him,  but  he  can  do  nothing. 
He  looks  until  he  is  excited  to  phrensy,  from  which 
he  very  probably  passes  over  to  raving  madness,  or 
settles  down  into  a  state  of  gloomy  despair. 

6.  Another  very  decisive  objection  to  this  doctrine 
is,  the  frequent,  and  I  may  say  uniform  language  of 
Scripture.  The  Scriptures  require  us  to  seek — ask — 
knock — come  to  Christ — look  unto  God — repent — 
believe — oj>en  the  door  of  the  heart — receive  Christ, 
&c.  No  one  can  fail  to  notice  how  these  instructions 
are  sprinkled  over  the  whole  volume  of  revelation. 
And  what  is  specially  in  point  here,  all  these  are 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  225 

spoken  of  and  urged  upon  us  as  conditions  of  blessings 
that  shall  follow — even  the  blessings  of  salvation,  of 
regeneration — and  as  conditions,  too,  without  which 
we  cannot  expect  these  blessings.  Take  one  passage 
of  many — "  As  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave 
he  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God,  even  to  them 
that  believe  on  his  name."  If  any  one  doubts  whether 
"  becoming  the  sons  of  God,"  as  expressed  in  this  text, 
means  regeneration,  the  next  verse  will  settle  it — 
"  Which  were  horn  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the 
flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God,"  John  i,  12, 
13.  The  latter  verse  I  may  have  occasion  to  remark 
upon  hereafter ;  it  is  quoted  here  to  show  that  the  new 
birth  is  undoubtedly  the  subject  here  spoken  of  And 
we  are  here  expressly  taught,  in  language  that  will 
bear  no  other  interpretation,  that  receiving  Christ  and 
believing  on  his  name  are  the  conditions  of  regenera- 
tion. If  there  were  no  other  passage  in  the  Bible  to 
direct  our  minds  on  this  subject,  this  plain  unequivo- 
cal text  ought  to  be  decisive.  But  the  truth  is,  this 
is  the  uniform  language  of  Scripture.  And  are  there 
any  passages  against  these,  any  that  say  we  cannot 
come,  cannot  beheve,  seek,  &c.?  or  any  that  say  this 
work  of  personal  regeneration  is  performed  independ- 
ent of  conditions  ?  I  know  of  none  which  will  not 
fairly  admit  of  a  different  construction.  We  are  often 
met  with  this  passage — '-It  is  not  of  him  that  willeth,. 
nor  of  him  that  runneth,  but  of  God  that  showeth 
mercy."  See  Rom.  ix,  16.  But  whoever  interpreteth 
this  of  personal  and  individual  regeneration  can  hardly 
have  examined  the  passage  carefully  and  candidly. 
But  we  are  told  again,  it  is  God  that  renews  the 
heart ;  and  if  it  is  his  work,  it  is  not  the  work  of  the 
sinner.     I  grant  this;  this  is  the  very  sentiment  I 

10* 


226  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

mean  to  maintain  ;  but  then  there  may  be  conditions 
— there  are  conditions — or  else  we  should  not  hear 
the  psalmist  praying  for  this,  in  language  that  has 
been  preserved  for  the  edification  of  all  subsequent 
generations,  "  Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,  O  God,  and 
renew  a  right  spirit  within  me."  This  is  a  practical 
comment  on  Christ's  conditional  salvation,  "  Ask  and 
ye  shall  receive." 

Since,  then,  this  doctrine  of  passive  and  uncondi- 
tional regeneration  implies  unconditional  election — 
since  it  is  in  opposition  to  those  scriptures  which  teach 
that  the  Spirit  and  grace  of  God  may  be  resisted  and 
received  in  vain — since  it  is  a  virtual  denial  of  all 
gracious  influences  upon  the  heart  before  regenera- 
tion— since  it  leads  the  abetters  of  the  theory  into 
gross  contradictions,  by  their  endeavours  to  reconcile 
the  can  and  the  cannot  of  their  system — since  its 
practical  tendency  is  to  make  sinners  careless,  or  drive 
them  to  despair — and,  finally,  since  it  contradicts  that 
numerous  class  of  scriptures,  some  of  which  are  very 
unequivocal,  that  predicate  the  blessings  of  regenera- 
tion and  justification  upon  certain  preparatory  and 
conditional  acts  of  the  sinner — therefore  we  conclude 
that  this  theory  cannot  be  true. 

Second  Theory. — To  avoid  these  difficulties,  to 
make  the  sinner  feel  his  responsibility,  and  to  bring 
him  into  action,  a  new  theory  of  regeneration  is  pro- 
posed. This  constitutes  a  leading  characteristic  of 
the  New  Divinity.  It  is  the  theory  of  self-conversion. 
Its  advocates  maintain  that  there  is  no  more  mystery 
or  supernatural  agency  in  the  process  of  the  change, 
called  the  new  birth,  than  there  is  in  any  other  lead- 
ing purpose  or  decision  of  the  mind.  It  is  true,  they 
do  not  wholly  exclude  the  Holy  Spirit  from  this  work, 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  227 

but  his  agency  is  mediate  and  indirect.  He  acts  in 
some  undefmable  way,  through  the  truth  as  an  instru- 
ment. The  truth  acts  upon  the  mind,  in  the  way  of 
moral  suasion^  and  the  sinner,  in  the  view  and  by 
the  influence  of  truth,  resolves  to  give  himself  up  to 
God  and  to  his  service — and  this  is  regeneration. 
The  preparation  is  of  God — but  the  actual  change  is 
man's  own  work.  The  God  of  providence  reveals 
the  truth  and  arranges  the  means  for  its  promulgation ; 
the  Spirit  of  grace  applies  it  to  the  understanding ;  the 
sinner  looks  at  it,  reflects  upon  it,  and  at  length  is 
persuaded  to  set  about  the  work,  and  regenerates 
himself! 

That  we  may  be  the  better  prepared  \o  meet  this 
hypothesis,  it  should  be  noticed  that  it  is  inseparable 
from  the  notion  that  all  sin  consists  in  voluntary 
exercise,  or,  in  other  words,  in  a  series  of  sinful  voli- 
tions. Regeneration  is  a  change  from  sin  to  holiness 
— and  hence  a  regenerate  state  is  the  opposite  of  a 
sinful  state.  If,  then,  a  regenerate  state  is  nothing 
more  than  a  series  of  holy  volitions,  an  unregenerate 
state,  which  is  its  opposite,  is  nothing  more  than  a 
series  of  unholy  volitions.  Thus  it  appears  that  this 
doctrine  of  regeneration  by  the  act  of  the  will  must 
stand  or  fall  with  the  notion  that  all  sin  consists  in 
voluntary  exercise.  Any  argument,  therefore,  brought 
against  this  latter  theory  will  bear  with  equal  weight 
against  this  new  idea  of  regeneration.  Bearing  this 
in  mind,  we  are  prepared  to  object  to  this  doctrine, 

1.  That  it  is  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  of  con- 
stitutional depravity.  This  is  granted  by  the  sup- 
porters of  the  theory,  and  hence  constitutional  depra- 
vity is  no  part  of  their  system.  All  the  arguments 
therefore  that  have  been  adduced  in  favour  of  derived, 


228  CALVINISTIC   COrs'TROVERSY. 

inherent  depraAaty,  or  that  can  be  urged  in  favour  of 
this  doctrine,  will  stand  directly  opposed  to  this  view 
of  regeneration.  The  arguments  in  favour  of  our 
views  of  depravity  need  not  be  repeated ;  and  the 
reader  is  referred  to  a  previous  number  in  which  this 
point  has  been  discussed. 

2.  Another  objection  to  this  theory  of  regeneration 
is,  that  it  makes  entire  sanctification  take  place  at  the 
time  of  regeneration.  Conversion,  holiness,  are  no- 
thing more  than  a  decision  of  the  Avill;  and  since  the 
will  can  never  be  more  than  decided^  of  course  the 
decision  at  regeneration  is  the  jjerfection  of  holiness. 
On  this  ground,  therefore,  though  Christians  are 
exhorted  lo  "  cleanse  themselves  from  all  filthiness  of 
flesh  and  spirit,  perfecting  holiness  in  the  fear  of  the 
Lord  ;"  though  tbe  saints  are  commanded  to  "  grow 
in  grace,"  to  "  confess  their  sins,"  that  they  may  be 
"  cleansed  from  all  unrighteousness  ;"  though  some  of 
the  Corinthian  Christians  v/ere  "carnal  and  walked 
as  men,"  and  for  that  reason  were,  after  years  of  ex- 
perience, ^only  babes  in  Christ— still,  if  we  embrace 
this  sentiment,  we  must  call  the  convert,  at  his  first 
spiritual  breath,  as  holy  as  he  ever  can  he  in  any  of 
the  subsequent  stages  of  his  experience  !  Surely  the 
apostles  taught  not  this  !  And  yet  so  strongly  are 
men  impelled  forward  by  their  systems,  this  doctrine 
of  perfect  holiness  at  conversion  is  the  very  sentiment 
that  many  of  the  advocates  of  the  New  Divinity  are 
now  propagating — a  clear  proof  that  it  necessarily 
follows  from  their  theory  of  conversion.  This  of 
itself,  it  strikes  me,  ought  to  destroy  the  doctrine. 

3.  Another  bearing  of  this  hypothesis,  and  one 
which  I  think  must  prove  fatal  to  it,  is,  that  the 
Scriptures  represent  this  change  to  be  chiefly  in  the 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY.  229 

affections,  whereas  this  doctrine  makes  it  exclusively 
in  the  will.  That  the  Scriptures  place  the  change  in 
the  affections  chiefly,  I  suppose  will  not  be  denied. 
If  it  should  be,  without  stopping  here  to  quote  specific 
passages,  or  use  many  arguments,  one  consideration 
alone  will  be  suflicient  to  set  the  question  at  rest. 
True  evangelical  holiness  consists  in  love  to  God  and 
man  ;  and  sin  is  loving  the  creature  rather  than  the 
Creator.  The  apostle  brings  into  view  both  the  re- 
generate and  the  unregenerate  state  in  this  passage — 
"  Set  your  affection  on  things  above,  and  not  on  things 
on  the  earth."  Numerous  are  the  passages  which 
teach  that  love  to  God  is  the  essence  of  the  Christian 
character.  The  affections,  therefore,  are  the  seat  of 
this  change.  But  we  are  told  by  this  new  theory  the 
change  is  in  the  will.  It  is  only  to  resolve  to  serve 
God,  and  we  are  converted.  Either  this  theory, 
therefore,  or  the  Bible  account  of  this  matter,  must  be 
wrong. 

To  avoid  this  difficulty,  it  may  be  said,  that  a 
change  of  the  will  implies  a  change  of  the  affections. 
But  this  is  changing  the  position — which  is,  that  a 
decision  of  the  will  is  regeneration.  If,  however,  this 
new  position  be  insisted  upon,  it  can  be  reconciled 
with  the  phraseology  used  only  by  making  a  change 
of  the  affections  a  mere  subordinate  part  of  regenera- 
tion, whereas  the  Scriptures  make  the  change  consist 
essentially  in  this.  But  there  is  still  a  more  serious 
difficulty  in  this  idea,  that  the  change  of  the  will  im- 
phes  a  change  in  the  affections.  It  necessarily  impHes 
that  the  affections  are  at  all  times  under  the  control 
of  the  will.  But  this  is  as  unphilosophical  as  it  is 
unscriptural.  It  is  even  directly  contrary  to  the  ob- 
servation and  kno\yledge  of  men  who  have  paid  only 


230 


CALVIMSTIC    CONTROVERSY. 


common  and  casual  attention  to  mental  phenomena. 
The  will  is  oftener  in  thralled  by  the  affections  than 
the  affections  by  the  will.  Even  in  common  and 
worldly  matters  let  a  man  try  by  an  effort  of  the  will 
to  beget  love  where  it  does  not  exist,  or  to  transfer  the 
affections  from  one  object  to  another,  and  how  will  he 
succeed?  Will  love  and  hatred  go  or  come  at  his 
bidding  ?  You  might  as  well  attempt,  by  an  act  of 
the  will,  to  make  sweet  bitter,  or  bitter  sweet,  to  the 
physical  taste.  How  much  less  can  a  man,  by  an  act 
of  the  will,  make  all  things  new,  and  transfer  the 
heart  from  the  grossness  of  creature  love  to  the  purity 
of  supreme  love  to  God.  The  Apostle  Paul  has 
taught  us  his  failure  in  this  matter.  When  he 
"  would  do  good,  evil  was  present  with  him."  "  For," 
says  he,  "  the  good  that  I  would  do,  I  do  not ;  but  the 
evil  which  I  would  not,  that  I  do."  And  this  is  the 
fact  in  most  cases  of  genuine  awakening.  Resolutions 
are  formed,  but  the  current  of  the  unsanctified  affec- 
tions sweeps  them  away.  Over  the  untowardness  ol 
the  unregenerate  heart  the  will  has,  in  fact,  but  a 
feeble  influence  ;  and  this  is  the  reason  why  the  man, 
struggling  with  the  corruptions  of  his  heart,  is  driven 
to  despair,  and  exclaims,  "  O  !  wretched  man  that  I 
am:  who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of  this 
death  ?" 

We  shall  see  hereafter  how  the  action  of  the  will  is 
indispensable  in  regeneration  ;  but  not  in  this  direct 
way  to  change  and  control  the  affections,  by  the 
power  of  its  own  decisions.  When  I  find  my  will 
capable  of  doing  this,  I  must  have  an  essentially  dif- 
ferent intellectual  character  from  the  one  I  now  have. 

Since  the  Scriptures  make  the  new  birth  a  change 
of  affections,  and  this  theory  makes  it  a  change  of 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  231 

volitions ;  and  especially  since  the  affections  cannot  be 
transferred  from  earth  to  heaven  by  a  mere  act  of  the 
will^  therefore  the  doctrine  which  teaches  and  implies; 
these  views  must  be  false. 

4.  This  idea  of  the  character  of  sin  and  of  the  new 
birth  makes  man  sinless,  at  particular  times,  even 
without  regeneration.  I  do  not  mean  by  this  that  he 
is  not  obnoxious  to  punishment  for  past  unholy  voli- 
tions. But  if  sin  consists  only  in  voluntary  exercise, 
whenever  the  mind  does  not  act,  or  whenever  its 
action  is  not  under  the  control  of  the  will,  there  is 
nothing  of  sin  personally  appertaining  to  the  man. 
When  the  action  of  the  will  is  suspended  by  an  all- 
absorbing  emotion  of  wonder  or  surprise — in  sound 
sleep  when  the  mental  states,  if  there  are  any,  are  not 
under  the  control  of  the  will — in  cases  of  suspended 
animation,  by  drowning,  fainting,  or  otherwise — in 
short,  whenever  the  mind  is  necessarily  wholly  en- 
grossed, as  is  often  the  case,  by  some  scientific  investi- 
gation, or  matter  of  worldly  business,  not  of  a  moral 
character,  then,  and  in  every  such  case,  whatever  may 
be  the  guilt  for  past  transgressions,  there  is  no  personal 
unholiness.  And  by  the  same  reasoning  we  may 
show  that  the  regenerate  pass  a  great  portion  of  their 
time  without  any  personal  holiness  ! 

5.  According  to  the  theory  we  are  opposing,  rege- 
neration, strictly  speaking,  means  nothing.  The 
work  of  grace,  by  which  a  sinner  is  made  meet  for 
heaven,  embraces  two  essential  points,  fardon  and 
renewal.  The  former  is  not  a  positive  change  of 
character,  but  a  relative  change,  from  a  state  of  con- 
demnation to  a  state  of  acquittal.  But  as  regeneration, 
if  it  have  any  appropriate  meaning,  cannot  mean  a 
mere  change  of  relation,  any  construction  or  system 


232  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

that  forces  such  a  meaning  upon  it  does,  in  fact,  do  it 
away.  Hence,  being  horn  again,  being  reneived, 
being  created  anew,  being  sanctified,  being  trans- 
lated from  darkness  to  light,  being  raised  from  the 
dead,  and  numerous  other  Scripture  expressions,  are 
figurative  forms  of  speech,  so  foreign  from  the  idea 
they  are  used  to  express,  that  they  are  worse  than 
unmeaning — they  lead  to  error.  But  if  these  expres- 
sions mean  any  thing  more  than  pardon,  what  is  that 
meaning  ?  This  doctrine  makes  the  principal  change 
take  place  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  will ;  not  in 
the  will  itself,  meaning  by  that,  the  mental  power  by 
which  we  put  forth  volitions.  This  faculty  of  the 
mind  is  sound,  and  needs  no  change — all  the  other 
mental  susceptibilities  are  sound,  the  essence  of  the 
mind  and  the  susceptibilities  of  the  mind  are  perfectly 
free  from  any  moral  perversion.  It  is  the  mental 
action  that  is  bad.  What  is  there  then  in  the  man 
that  is  to  be  changed?  Do  you  say  his  volitions? 
But  these  he  changes  every  hour.  Do  you  say,  he 
must  IcEwre  off  wrong  volitions,  and  have  right  ones  ? 
This,  too,  he  often  does.  "  But  he  must  do  it  with 
right  motives,"  you  say,  "  and  this  acting  from  right 
onotives  is  the  regenerate  state."  Indeed  !  Suppose, 
then,  that  he  has  resolved  to  serve  God  from  right 
motives ;  what  if  he  should  afterward  resolve,  from 
false  shame  or  fear,  to  neglect  a  duty, — is  he  now 
unregenerate  ?  This  is  changing  from  regenerate  to 
unregenerate,  from  entire  holiness  to  entij-e  unholiness 
with  a  breath.  Truly  such  a  regeneration  is  nothing. 
But  you  say,  after  he  has  once  submitted,  he  now  has 
a  "  governing  purpose"  to  serve  God,  and  this  consti- 
tutes him  regenerate  ;  ay,  a  governing  purpose  that 
does  not  govern  him.     Let  it  be  understood,  you 


CALVIN ISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  233 

cannot  divide  a  volition  ;  it  has  an  entire  character  in 
itself;  and  if  it  be  unholy,  no  preceding  holy  volition 
can  sanctify  it.  Hence  every  change  of  volition  from 
wrong  to  right,  and  from  right  to  wrong,  is  a  change 
of  state,  so  that  regeneracy  and  unregeneracy  play  in 
and  out  of  the  human  bosom  in  the  alternation  of 
every  criminal  thought  or  every  pious  aspiration.  Is 
this  the  Bible  doctrine  of  the  new  birth?  And  yet  this 
is  all  you  can  make  of  it,  if  you  resolve  it  into  the 
mere  action  of  the  will. 

7.  This  doctrine  of  self-conversion,  by  an  act  of  the 
will,  is  directly  contrary  to  Scripture.  It  would  be 
tedious  to  me  and  my  readers  to  quote  all  those  pas- 
sages that  attribute  this  work  directly  to  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  that  speak  of  it  as  a  work  which  God  him- 
self accomplishes  for  and  in  us.  There  is  one  pas- 
sage which  is  much  in  point,  however,  and  is  suffi- 
cient of  itself  to  settle  this  question.  "But  as  many  as 
received  him,  to  them  gave  he  power  to  become  the  sons 
of  God,  even  to  them  that  believe  on  his  name.  Who 
were  born,  not  of  blood,  nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor 
of  the  will  of  man,  but  of  God,"  John  i,  12, 13.  This  is  a 
two-edged  sword — it  'cuts  off,  as  we  have  remarked  be- 
fore, passive  and  unconditional  regeneration  on  the  one 
hand,  and  also,  as  we  may  now  see,  self-conversion 
by  an  act  of  the  will  on  the  other.  I  know  not  how 
words  can  be  put  together,  in  so  small  a  compass, 
better  to  answer  the  true  objects  of  destroying  these 
two  opposite  theories  of  regeneration,  and  asserting  the 
true  theory.  Here  is,  first — The  receiving  of  Christ, 
the  believing  on  his  name.  This  is  the  condition. 
Second,  Christ  gives  the  "  power,"  viz.,  strength  and 
privilege,  to  become  the  sons  of  God.  This  is  the 
regeneration.     Third — This  becoming  "the  sons  of 


334  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

God,"  or  being  "  born,"  is  not  in  a  physical  way^  by- 
flesh  and  blood,  nor  yet  by  human  tvill,  but  of  or 
by  God.    Can  any  thing  be  clearer  or  more  decisive  ? 

Indeed,  the  very  terms  7'ege?ieration,  bom,  birth, 
&c.,  imply  of  themselves  another  and  an  efficient 
agent ;  and  then  to  connect  these  with  the  divine 
agency,  as  the  Scriptures  have  done  some  half  dozen 
times  in  the  phrase,  "  born  of  God,"  and  several  other 
times  in  the  phrase,  "  born  of  the  Spirit ;"  to  have  this 
called  being  "  begotten  again,"  and  the  like,  is  enough, 
one  would  think,  if  words  have  any  meaning,  to 
show  that  man  does  not  change  his  own  heart.  The 
same  may  be  said  of  the  terms  7'esurreciio7i,  transla- 
tion, creation,  reiiewal,  and  various  other  terms  the 
Scriptures  use  to  express  this  change.  Jesus  Christ 
claimed  that  he  had  "  power  to  lay  down  his  life,  and 
to  take  it  again  f^  but  this  is  the  only  instance  of 
self-resurrection  power  that  we  read  of;  and  even 
this  was  by  his  divine  nature  ;  for  he  was  "  quickened 
by  the  Spirit,"  and  raised  ^'-  by  the  power  of  God." 
Rut  the^e  theorists  teach  that  man  has  power  to  lay 
down  his  hfe,  and  then,  after  he  is  "  dead  in  trespasses 
and  sins,"  he  has  power  to  take  his  life  again.  Truly 
this  is  giving  man  a  power  that  approaches  very  near 
to  one  of  the  divine  attributes.  To  Christ  alone  does 
it  belong  ''to  quicken  whom  he  will."  To  change 
the  heart  of  the  sinner  is  one  of  the  divine  preroga- 
tives, and  he  that  attempts  to  convert  himself,  and 
trusts  to  this,  will  find  in  the  end  that  he  is  carnal 
still.  For  "  whatsoever  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh, 
but  whatsoever  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit." 

Let  me  not  here  be  misunderstood.  I  shall  endea- 
vour to  show,  in  its  proper  place,  the  conditional 
agency  of  man  in  this  work.   I  have  only  time  to  add, 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  235 

in  this  number,  that  I  consider  those  scriptures  which 
press  duties  upon  the  sinner  as  applying  to  this  con- 
ditional agency.  And  even  those  strong  expressions 
which  sometimes  occur  in  the  Bible,  requiring  the 
sinner  to  "make  himself  a  new  heart" — "  to  cleanse 
his  hands  and  purify  his  heart,"  &c.,  will  find  an  easy 
solution  and  a  pertinent  application  in  this  view  of  the 
subject.  For  if  there  are  certain  pending  conditions.- 
without  which  the  work  will  not  be  accomplished, 
then  there  would  be  a  propriety,  while  pressing  this 
duty,  to  use  expressions  showing  that  this  work  was 
conditionally,  though  not  efficiently^  resting  upon  the 
agency  of  the  sinner. 

In  my  next  I  shall  endeavour  to  show  that  there  is 
no  intermediate  Calvinistic  ground  between  the  two 
theories  examined  in  this  number.  If  that  attempt 
prove  successful,  and  if  in  this  it  has  been  found  that 
the  two  theories  examined  are  encumbered  with  too 
many  embarrassments  to  be  admitted,  then  we  shall 
be  the  better  prepared  to  listen  to  the  teachings  of  the 
Scriptures  on  this  important  and  leading  doctrine 
of  the  Christian  faith. 


NUMBER  XIV. 

REGENERATION,  CONTINUED. 

An  inconsistency  in  any  received  theory  is  con 
stantly  driving  its  supporters  to  some  modification  of 
their  system.     This  is  a  redeeming  principle  in  the 
human  mind,  and  greatly  encourages  the  hope  that 
^ruth  will  finally  triumph. 

It  has  already  been  noticed  that  the  doctrine  of 
entire  passivity,  in  regeneration,  is  so  pressed  with 


236  CALVIN ISTIC   CONTROVERSY. 

difficulties  that  it  has  sought  rehef  in  the  opposite 
notion  of  self-conversion.  But  this  latter  hypothesis 
is,  in  turn,  encumbered,  if  possible,  with  still  greater 
embarrassments.  The  presumption  therefore  is,  that 
the  truth  lies  between  them ;  and  it  will  doubtless  be 
found,  by  a  fair  and  thorough  investigation,  that  this 
is  the  fact.  But  here  the  question  arises.  Can  Cal- 
v'mists  consistently  occupy  any  such  middle  ground ? 
In  other  words,  retaining  the  other  peculiarities  of 
Calvinism,  can  our  Calvinistic  brethren  assume  any 
position  between  these  two  extremes  which  will  avoid 
the  difficulties  of  both  ?  A  brief  examination,  it  is 
hoped,  will  decide  this  question. 

Third  Theory. — Dr.  Tyler  is  a  highly  respectable 
clergyman  of  the  Calvinistic  faith,  and  is  now  at  the 
head  of  the  theological  school  in  East  Windsor,  Con- 
necticut, which  was  got  up  with  the  avowed  purpose 
of  counteracting  the  New-Haven  theology.  We  should 
not  therefore  suspect  him  of  leaning  too  much  toward 
the  New  Divinity.  He  tells  us  that  the  only  depra- 
vity is  ta  be  unwilling  to  serve  God — that  there  is  "  no 
other  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  sinner's  salvation 
except  what  lies  in  his  own  will" — that  "  to  be  born 
again  is  simply  to  be  made  willing  to  do  what  God 
requires."  What  is  this  but  the  New  Divinity?  The 
will  is  here  made,  most  explicitly,  the  sole  seat  of 
depravity ;  and  regeneration  is  an  act  of  the  will.  But 
every  act  of  the  will  is  the  sinner's  oion  act^  and  there- 
fore the  agent,  by  that  act  of  the  will  which  constitutes 
regeneration,  converts  himself  Perhaps  Dr.  ^y\QX 
will  say  the  sinner  in  this  case  does  not  convert  him- 
self, because  he  is  "  made  willing!''  God  makes  him 
willing  "  in  the  day  of  his  power."  It  is  remarkable 
what  a  favourite  phrase  this  is  with  the  Calvinists. 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  237 

It  is  borrowed  from  the  third  verse  of  the  hundred 
and  tenth  Psalm,  "  Thy  people  shall  be  willing  in  the 
day  of  thy  power."  Now  although  the  word  '•  made" 
is  not  in  the  text ;  although  there  is  not  the  slightest 
evidence  that  the  text  speaks  of  regeneration  at  all, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  most  evidently  intended  to 
describe  the  character  and  conduct  of  God's  people, 
viz.,  the  regenerate ;  and  although  every  scholar,  at 
least,  among  the  Calvinists,  knows  this  as  well  as  he 
knows  his  right  hand  from  the  left,  yet  we  hear  it 
repeated  by  the  learned  and  the  ignorant,  at  all  times 
and  places — "  God's  people  are  made  willing  in  the 
day  of  his  power."  It  is  not  only  a  gross  perversion 
of  a  Scripture  phrase,  but  its  repetition,  in  this  per- 
verted sense,  renders  it  wearisome  and  sickening. 
But,  waiving  this,  it  becomes  us  to  ask  whether  there 
is  any  more  rational  or  Scriptural  ground  for  the  idea 
itself  than  there  is  for  this  use  of  the  text.  What  is 
meant  by  making  the  soul  willing  ?  I  confess  I  cannot 
understand  it.  Is  it  meant  that  God  forces  the  soul 
to  be  willing  ?  This  is  a  contradiction  in  terms.  To 
say  that  God  acts  directly  on  the  will,  and  thus 
changes  its  determination  by  superior  force,  is  to 
destroy  its  freedom — is  to  produce  a  volition  without 
motive  or  reason — which  would,  at  any  rate,  be  an 
anomalous  action  of  tiie  will.  And,  what  is  still  more 
fatal  to  the  theory,  it  implies  no  act  of  the  sinner 
v/hatever,  but  an  irresistible  act  of  the  divine  power, 
which  therefore  necessarily  throws  the  theory  back 
upon  the  doctrine  of  passive  conversion.  There  is 
no  avoiding  this  conclusion,  I  think,  on  the  ground 
that  God  changes  the  action  of  the  will,  by  an  exertion 
of  power  upon  the  will  itself  If,  to  avoid  this,  it 
should  be  said  that  the  will  is  not  changed  by  a  direct 


238  CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY. 

act  of  power,  but  influenced  to  a  holy  determination 
indirectly,  through  the  medium  of  motives,  presented 
by  the  Holy  Spirit — then  and  in  that  case  we  should 
be  thrown  forward  on  to  the  self-conversion  system. 
The  sinner's  voluntary  act,  by  which  he  regenerated 
himself,  would  be  as  truly  and  entirely  his  ovm  as  any 
other  act  of  the  will ;  therefore  he  would  be  self-rege- 
nerated. This  also  would  be  regeneration,  not  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  but  hy  the  truth  ;  which  is  another  fea- 
ture of  the  New  Divinity.  This  also  would  make  all 
depravity  consist  in  the  will,  or  rather  in  its  acts ; 
which  has  been  shown  in  the  preceding  number  to 
be  unscriptural  as  well  as  unphilosophical.  This 
objection  is  valid,  whether  the  depravity  is  supposed 
to  be  in  the  yower  of  willing  or  in  the  acts  of  the  will. 
But  since,  in  Dr.  Tyler's  view,  to  will  in  one  direction 
is  depravity,  and  to  will  in  another  direction  is  rege- 
neration, and  since  all  that  motives  can  do  is,  not  to 
change  the  will  itself,  bat  only  prompt  it  to  new 
voluntary  states,  it  follows  conclusively  that  Dr.  Tyler 
makes  all  holiness  and  all  unholiness  consist  in  voli- 
tions ;  and  therefore  the  moral  exercise  system  is 
true  ;  which  is  another  feature  of  the  New  Divinity. 
Truly  I  may  repeat,  we  do  not  need  another  theolo- 
gical seminary  in  Connecticut  to  teach  this  doctrine. 
Finally,  according  to  this  theory  of  Dr.  Tyler,  he 
and  all  those  who  reason  like  him  are  chargeable,  I 
think,  with  a  palpable  paralogism — they  reason  in  a 
circle.  They  say,  in  the  express  language  of  Dr. 
Tyler,  "  All  men  may  be  saved  if  they  will" — "  No 
man  is  hindered  from  coming  to  Christ  who  is  willing 
to  come"— that  is,  since  to  will  and  to  be  willing  is  to 
be  regenerated,  this  language  gravely  teaches  us,  "  All 
men  maybe  saved,  if  they  are  regenerated)"^ — "No 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  239 

man  is  hindered  from  coming  to  Christ  (to  be  regene- 
rated) who  is  regenerated  r  And  indeed  this  view 
of  regeneration  not  only  makes  learned  divines  talk 
nonsense,  but  the  Scriptures  also.  The  invitation, 
"Whosoever  will,  let  him  come,"  &c.,  must  mean, 
"  Whosoever  is  regenerate,  let  him  come,"  and  so  of 
other  passages.  Thus  this  theory  of  Dr.  Tyler,  and 
of  the  many  who  hold  with  him,  is  so  closely  hemmed 
in  on  both  sides,  that  it  must  throw  itself  for  support 
either  upon  the  doctrine  of  passivity  or  self  conver- 
sion ;  at  the  same  time  that  in  other  respects  it  involves 
itself  in  inconsistent  and  Antiscriptural  dogmas. 

But,  that  we  may  leave  no  position  unexamined,  let 
us  take  another  view  of  the  subject.  Suppose,  instead 
of  saying  regeneration  is  simply  a  change  of  the  will, 
it  should  be  argued  that  a  change  of  the  will  implies 
a  change  of  the  affections,  and  this  therefore  is  included 
in  regeneration.  Then  I  would  ask,  whether  this 
change  of  the  affections  is  in  the  order  of  cause  and 
effect,  or  in  the  order  of  time,  jjrior  or  subsequent  to 
the  act  of  the  will  If  this  change  is  prior  to  any 
action  of  the  will  in  the  case,  then  the  sinner  has  no 
voluntary  co-operation  in  the  work  ;  and  this  brings 
us  up  once  more  upon  the  doctrine  of  passive  regene- 
ration. The  heart  is  changed  before  the  subject  of 
the  change  acts.  If  the  action  of  the  will  precedes  the 
change  of  the  heart,  then  this  change  will  be  effected 
in  one  of  two  ways.  Either  this  anterior  volition  does 
itself  change  the  heart,  or  it  is  a  mere  preparatory 
condition,  on  occasion  of  ivhich  God  changes  the 
heart.  In  the  Ibrmer  case  the  man  himself  would 
change  his  own  heart,  and  this  is  self  conversion  ;  and 
in  the  latter  alternative  we  have  a  conditional  regene- 
ration wrought  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  this  is  the 


240  CALVINISTIC    CON'i  ROVJtiRSY. 

very  doctrine  for  which  we  contend^  in  opposition  to 
Calvinism.  If  it  should  be  said,  this  change  of  the 
will  and  this  change  of  the  heart  take  place  indepen- 
dent of  each  other,  that  would  not  help  the  matter, 
since  in  this  view  the  change  of  heart  would  be  pas- 
sive and  unconditional.  Thus,  whichever  way  this 
system  turns,  its  difficulties  press  upon  it  still,  and  it 
finds  no  relief  Indeed,  there  can.  as  I  conceive,  be 
no  intermediate  Calvinistic  theory  of  regeneration, 
and  there  can  he  but  two  other  alternatives : — either 
God  must  renew  the  heart,  independent  of  all  co-ope- 
ration on  the  part  of  the  subject  of  this  change — and 
this  is  the  old  doctrine  of  unconditional  divine  effi- 
ciency— or  the  first  acceptable  act  of  the  will  must  be 
regeneration  ;  and  this  is  the  new  doctrine  of  self- 
conversion.  Let  the  reader,  let  any  one  reflect  closely 
on  this  subject,  and  I  cannot  doubt  but  he  will  say 
with  me.  There  is  no  third  alternative.  The  nature 
of  the  case  will  admit  of  none.  The  former  theory 
may  not  contradict  many  of  those  scriptures  that  speak 
of  divl?ie  efficiency  in  the  work  of  grace  upon  the 
heart,  but  it  is  utterly  incompatible  with  those  that 
urge  the  sinner  to  duty.  The  latter  theory  corre- 
sponds well  with  the  urgent  injunctions  to  duty  so 
abundant  in  the  Scriptures,  but  is  wholly  irreconci- 
lable with  those  that  speak  of  divine  efficiency.  The 
true  theory  must  answer  to  both ;  and  must  also  cor- 
respond with  all  the  other  parts  of  the  Christian 
system.  Is  there  such  a  theory  ?  Every  honest  in- 
quirer after  truth  will  embrace  it,  doubtless,  if  it  can 
be  presented— for  truth,  wherever,  and  whenever,  and 
by  whomsoever  discovered,  is  infinitely  to  be  preferred 
to  error,  however  long  and  fondly  it  may  have  been 
cherished.    Such  a  theory  I  will  now  try  to  present ; 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  241 

an^ although  I  may  fail  in  making  it  very  explicit, 
and  in  bringing  forward  all  its  defences,  yet,  if  the 
general  outlines  can  be  seen  and  be  defended,  it  will, 
I  trust,  commend  itself  to  the  favourable  notice  of  the 
reader. 

Scripture  Doctrine  of  Regeneration. — I  approach 
this  subject  by  laying  down  the  two  following  funda- 
mental principles : — 

1.  The  work  of  regeneration  is  performed  by  the 
direct  and  efficient  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon 
the  heart. 

2.  The  Holy  Spirit  exerts  this  regenerating  power 
only  on  conditions,  to  be  first  complied  with  by  the 
subject  of  the  change. 

The  first  principle  I  deem  it  unnecessary  to  defend 
farther  than  it  hajs  been  defended  iu.  the  foregoing 
remarks.  It  is  not  objected  to  by  any  orthodox 
Christians  that  I  know  of,  only  so  far  as  the  new 
views  of  self-conversion,  and  of  conversion  by  moral 
suasion,  may  be  thought  an  exception.  And  this  we 
have  reason  to  hope  will  be  an  exception  of  limited 
extent  and  short  duration.  The  sentiment  conflicts 
so  directly  with  such  a  numerous  class  of  scriptures, 
and  with  the  most  approved  principles  of  mental  phi- 
losophy ;  and  has,  at  the  same  time,  such  a  direct 
tendency  to  annihilate  all  the  essential  features  of 
regeneration,  it  cannot  long  find  encouragement  in  a 
spiritual  church.  It  may,  however,  make  many  con- 
verts for  a  time,  for  men  are  fond  of  taking  the  work 
of  salvation  into  their  own  hands ;  but  if  it  should, 
between  such  converts  and  the  true  church  there  will 
ultimately  be  a  separation  as  wide  as  that  which  now 
separates  orthodoxy  and  Socinianism. 

The  other  fundamental  principle  seems  to  follow, 
11 


342  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

almost  of  necessity,  from  the  scriptures  that  so  ahun- 
dantly  point  out  the  sinner's  duty  and  agency,  in  con- 
nection with  his  conversion.  The  principle,  however, 
is  strenuously  opposed  by  all  classes  of  Calvinists. 
The  opposite  of  this  is  in  fact  the  essential  charac- 
teristic of  Calvinism,  if  any  one  notion  can  be  so 
called ;  for  however  much  the  Calvinistic  system  may 
be  modified  in  other  respects,  this  is  clung  to  as  the 
elementary  germ  which  constitutes  the  identity  of  the 
system.  Even  the  New  Divinity,  which  makes  so 
much  of  human  agency,  does  not  allow  it  a  condi- 
tional action — it  allows  of  no  intermediate  volition 
between  the  mental  states  of  worldly  love  and  divine 
love,  as  the  occasion  on  which  the  transfer  is  made, 
*or  the  conditional  hinge  on  which  the  important  revo- 
lution is  accomplished.  On  the  contrary,  it  considers 
the  volition  itself  as  the  transfer — the  volition  consti- 
tutes the  entire  change.  Thus  warily  do3S  Calvinism, 
in  all  its  changes,  avoid  conditional  regeneration. 
Hence  if  I  were  called  upon  to  give  a  general  defini- 
tion of  Calvinism,  that  should  include  all  the  species 
that  claim  the  name,  I  would  say,  Calvinists  are 
those  who  believe  in  unconditional  regeneration. 
For  the  moment  this  point  is  given  up  by  any  one,  all 
parties  agree  that  he  is  not  a  Calvinist. 

But  why  is  conditional  regeneration  so  offensive  ? 
Is  it  because  the  Scriptures  directly  oppose  it  ?  This 
is  hardly  pretended.  It  is  supposed,  however,  by  the 
Calvinists,  that  to  acknowledge  this  doctrine  would 
require  the  renunciation  of  certain  other  doctrines 
which  are  taught  in  the  Scriptures.  This  lays  the 
foundation  for  the  objections  that  have  been  made 
against  this  doctrine.  It  is  objected  that  a  depraved 
sinner  cannot  'perform  an  acceptable  condition  until 


CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY.  243 

he  is  regenerated — that  God  cannot  consistently 
accept  of  any  act  short  of  that  which  constitutes 
regeneration— thoX  the  idea  of  a  conditional  rege- 
neration implies  salvation  by  works,  in  part  at  least, 
and  not  wholly  by  grace. 

I  have  mentioned  these  objections  in  this  connection, 
not  so  much  to  attempt,  at  this  moment,  a  direct  refu- 
tation of  them,  as  to  advert  to  what  I  conceive  to  be 
the  ground  of  the  difficulty  in  the  minds  of  those 
making  the  objections.  It  appears  to  me  that  the 
difference  between  us  results  principally  from  a  dif- 
ference of  our  views  in  respect  to  the  constitution  and 
the  constitutional  action  of  the  mind  itself  The 
philosophical  part  of  our  theology  will  be  modified 
very  much  by  oiir  views  of  the  philosophy  of  mind. 
Let  it  be  granted  then  : — 

1.  That  the  mind  is  possessed  of  a  moral  suscepti- 
bility, generally  called  conscience,  which  lays  the 
foundation  of  the  notions  of  right  and  wrong,  and  by 
which  we  feel  the  emotions  of  approval  or  disapproval 
for  our  past  conduct,  and  the  feelings  of  obligation 
with  respect  to  the  present  and  the  future  ;  and  that 
even  in  an  unregenerate  state  this  susceptibility  often 
operates  in  accordance  with  its  original  design,  and 
therefore  agreeably  with  the  divine  will. 

2.  That  the  understanding  or  intellect,  which  is  a 
general  division  of  the  mind,  containing  in  itself 
several  distinct  susceptibilities  or  powers,  may,  in  an 
unregenerate  state  of  the  mind,  be  so  enlightened  and 
informed  on  the  subjects  of  divine  truth  as  to  perceive 
the  right  and  the  wrong ;  and  as  to  perceive,  also,  to 
some  extent  at  least,  the  way  of  salvation  pointed  out 
in  the  gospel. 

3.  That  the  affections  and  propensities  (sometimes 


244  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

called  the  heart)  are  the  prmcipal  seat  of  depravity — 
and  these  are  often  arrayed  in  direct  hostility  to  the 
convictions  of  the  judgment  and  the  feelings  of  moral 
obligation. 

4.  That  the  will,  or  that  mental  power  by  which 
we  put  forth  volitions,  and  make  decisions,  while  it 
is  more  or  less,  directly  or  indirectly,  influenced  by 
the  judgment,  the  conscience,  and  the  affections,  is  in 
fact  designed  to  give  direction  and  unity  to  the  whole 
mental  action ;  and  it  always  accomplishes  this, 
where  there  is  a  proper  harmony  in  the  mental 
powers.  But  by  sin  this  harmony  has  been  disturbed, 
and  the  unholy  affections  have  gained  an  undue  as- 
cendency, so  that,  in  the  unregenerate,  in  all  questions 
of  preference  between  God  and  the  world,  in  spite  of 
the  judgment,  of  conscience,  and  of  the  will,  the 
world  is  loved  and  God  is  hated. 

5.  That  in  those  cases  where  we  cannot  control 
our  affections  by  a  direct  volition,  we  may,  neverthe- 
less, under  the  promptings  of  conscience,  and  in  the 
hght  of.  the  judgment,  resolve  against  sin — but  these 
resolutions,  however  firmly  and  repeatedly  made,  will 
be  carried  away  and  overruled  by  the  strength  of  the 
carnal  mind.  This  shows  us  our  own  weakness, 
drives  us  to  self-despair,  until,  under  the  enlightening 
influences  of  grace,  and  the  drawings  of  the  Spirit, 
the  soul  is  led  to  prayer  and  to  an  abdication  of  itself 
into  the  hands  of  divine  mercy,  through  Christ;  and 
then^  and  on  these  co7iditions,  the  Holy  Spirit  changes 
the  character  and  current  of  the  unholy  affections — 
and  this  is  regeneration. 

In  laying  down  the  preceding  postulates  I  have 
endeavoured  to  express  myself  with  as  much  brevity, 
and  with  as  little  metaphysical  technicality  as  possible; 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  245 

for  the  reason  that  they  are  designed  to  be  understood 
by  all.  Bating  the  deficiencies  that  may  on  this 
account  be  noticed  by  the  philosophical  reader,  I  think 
it  may  be  assumed  that  these,  so  far  as  the  powers 
and  operations  of  the  mind  are  concerned,  embrace 
the  basis  and  general  outlines  of  what  we  call  condi- 
tional  regeneration.  I  am  not  aware  that  they  are 
in  opposition  to  any  one  principle  of  Scripture  theo- 
logy, or  mental  philosophy.  And  if  this  process  is 
found  consonant  with  reason  and  Scripture,  in  its 
general  features,  it  will  be  easy  to  show  that  its 
relative  bearings  are  such  as  most  happily  har- 
monize all  the  doctrinal  phenomena  of  the  gospel 
system. 

We  plant  ourselves  then  upon  these  general  posi- 
tions, and  as  ability  will  permit,  or  truth  may  seem  to 
justify,  shall  endeavour  to  defend  them  against  such 
objections  as  may  be  anticipated,  or  are  known  to 
have  been  made  against  any  of  the  principles  here 
assumed. 

1.  It  may  be  objected  perhaps  that  this  is  making 
too  broad  a  distinction  between  the  different  mental 
powers,  giving  to  each  such  a  distinctive  action  and 
operation  as  to  infringe  upon  the  doctrine  of  the 
mind's  unity  and  simplicity.  It  is  believed,  however, 
the  more  this  point  is  reflected  upon  by  an  attentive 
observance  of  our  own  minds,  or  the  minds  of  others, 
the  more  satisfied  shall  we  be  that  the  principles  here 
assumed  are  correct.  That  there  are  these  distinct 
properties  of  mind  no  one  doubts.  It  is  in  accordance 
with  universal  language,  to  speak  of  the  intellect,  of 
the  conscience,  of  the  will,  and  of  the  affections,  as 
distinct  properties  of  the  mind.  The  properties  of 
mind  are  as  clearly  marked  by  our  consciousness,  as 


246  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

the  properties  of  matter  by  our  senses.  And  although, 
in  consequence  of  the  invisibility  of  mind,  there  is 
doubtless  a  more  perfect  unity  in  each  individual 
mental  property,  than  in  each  distinct  quality  of 
matter,  still  each  of  the  mental  qualities  has  its  appro- 
priate and  distinctive  character.  Calvinists  them- 
selves acknowledge  this.  They  allow  we  have  a 
moral  sense  which  tests  good  or  evil,  even  in  an  un- 
regenerate  state  ;  they  allow  the  intellect  may  perceive 
and  approve  of  truth,  even  when  the  heart  rejects  it ; 
they  allow  that  to  perceive  and  to  judge,  to  feel  moral 
obligation  and  to  will,  are  distinct  operations  of  the 
mind ;  and  that  our  perceptions  and  our  conscience 
may  be  right  when  our  affections  are  wrong.  So  far 
then  we  are  agreed,  and  so  far  they  make  distinctions 
in  the  mind  as  wide  as  any  that  have  been  claimed 
in  the  principles  above  laid  down.  Theo]oo;ians,  I 
grant,  have,  in  many  instances,  confounded  in  their 
reasonings  the  will  and  the  affections.  And  this  has 
also  sometimes  been  done  by  writers  on  the  philosophy 
of  the  mind.  But  it  is  most  evident,  I  think,  they 
have  done  this  without  good  reason.  Mr.  Locke  says, 
"  I  find  the  will  often  confounded  with  several  of  the 
affections,  especially  desire,  and  one  put  for  the  other." 
This  he  thinks  is  an  error,  of  which  "  any  one  who 
turns  his  thoug^hts  inward  upon  what  passes  in  his 
own  mind"  will  be  convinced.  Rev.  Professor  Upham, 
of  Bowdoin  College,  Maine,  himself  a  Calvinist,  as  is 
generally  supposed,  in  a  late  excellent  treatise  on  the 
will,  asserts,  and  clearly  proves,  I  think,  that  "^Ae 
state  of  the  mind  which  lue  term  volition,  is  entirely 
distinct  from,  that  which  we  term  desire"  Nay,  he 
proves  that  desires  and  volitions  are  often  in  direct 
opposition.    Hence  as  love  implies  desire,  our  volitions 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  247 

may  often  conflict  with  our  love.  And  this  is  pre- 
cisely the  state  the  awakened  sinner  is  in  when  he 
"  would  do  good,  but  evil  is  present  with  him." 

2.  It  may  be  said,  and  has  sometimes  been  said,  that 
this  view  of  the  subject  involves  a  contradiction  ;  that 
it  is  the  same  as  to  say  the  man  wills  against  his  pre- 
ference, or  in  other  words,  he  wills  what  he  does  not 
choose.     I  cannot  answer  this  objection  better  than  by 
an  argument  in   Professor  Upham's  work,    already 
alluded  to,  in  which  he  says,  of  a  similar  objection  on 
this  very  subject,  "  It  will  be  found  on  examination  to 
resolve  itself  into   a  verbal  fallacy,   and  naturally 
vanishes  as  soon  as  that  fallacy  is  detected."     "  It  is 
undoubtedly  true  that  the  common  usage  of  language 
authorizes  us  to  apply  the  terms  choice  and  choosing 
indiscriminately  to  either  the  desire  or  volition  ;  but  it 
does  not  follow,  and  is  not  true,  that  we  apply  them 
to  these  different  parts  of  our  nature  in  precisely  the 
same  sense."     "  When  the  word  choice  implies  desire 
at  all,  it  has  reference  to  a  number  of  desirable  objects 
brought  before  the  mind  at  once,  and  implies  and  ex- 
presses the  ascendant  or  predominant  desire."     "  At 
other  times  we  use  the  terms  choice  and  choosing  in 
application  to  the  will — when  it  is  applied  to  that 
power,  it  expresses  the  mere  act  of  the  will,  and  nothing 
more,  with  the  exception,  as  in  the  other  case,  that 
more  than  one  object  of  volition  was  present,  in  view 
of  the  mind,  before  the  putting  forth  of  the  voluntary 
act.     It  is,  in  fact,  the  circumstance  that  two  or  more 
objects  are  present,  which  suggests  the  use  of  the  word 
choice  or  choosing,  in  either  case."     "  But  the  acts  are 
entirely  different  in  their  nature,  although  under  cer- 
tain circumstances  the  same  name  is  applied  to  them." 
Hence  he  adds,  "  The  contradiction  is  not  a  real,  but 


!J48  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

merely  a  verbal  one.  If  we  ever  choose  against 
choosing,  it  will  be  found  merely  that  choice  which  is 
volition,  placed  against  that  choice  which  is  desire." 
And  this  is  nothing  more  than  to  say  that  volitions 
and  desires  may  conflict  with  each  other,  which  we 
know  to  be  the  fact  in  numerous  instances. 

If  in  reply  to  the  foregoing,  and  in  farther  defence 
of  the  objection,  it  should  be  urged,  that  there  could 
be  not  only  no  motive  for  the  volition  in  this  case,  but 
that  it  would  in  fact  be  put  forth  against  all  motive, 
since  the  feelings  of  the  heart  would  be  of  a  directly 
opposite  character,  I  reply,  that  it  is  not  true  that  there 
would  be  no  motive  for  the  action  of  the  will,  in  op- 
position to  the  sinful  affections.  It  is  seen  already 
that  the  judgment  in  the  awakened  sinner  is  against 
continuing  in  sin,  and  the  rebukes  of  the  conscience 
for  the  past,  and  its  admonitions  for  the  future,  are 
powerful  motives  in  opposition  to  the  unholy  afiec- 
tions.  The  feelings  of  compunction  and  of  moral 
obligation  gain  great  accessions  of  strength,  more- 
over, from  the  terrors  of  the  divine  law,  which  alarm 
the  fears,  and  from  the  promises  of  the  gospel,  which 
encourage  the  hopes  of  the  awakened  sinner.  And 
it  is  especially  and  emphatically  true  that,  under  the 
existing  influence  of  these  fears  and  hopes,  the  voice 
of  conscience  is  most  eflectual  in  prompting  the  sin- 
ner to  "  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come,"  and  "  lay  hold 
on  the  hope  set  before  him."  Can  it  be  said  then  that 
there  is  no  motive  for  a  volition,  or  a  mental  effort 
that  shall  conflict  with  the  unsanctified  affections  ? 

3.  Again  it  is  said,  for  every  inch  of  this  ground  is 
disputed,  that  the  action  of  the  mind  under  such 
motives  is  purely  selfish,  and  cannot  therefore  per- 
form conditions  acceptable  to  God.     To  this  it  may 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  249 

be  replied,  that  to  be  influenced  by  motives  of  self- 
preservation  and  personal  salvation  is  not  criminal ; 
nay,  it  is  commendable.  In  proof  of  this  but  one 
argument  is  necessary.  God  moves  upon  our  fears 
and  hopes,  for  the  express  purjiose  of  inducing  us 
to  forsake  sin,  and  serve  him ;  and  he  applies  these 
motives  to  man  in  his  unregenerate  state.  This  is 
so  obvious  a  fact,  it  is  presumed  none  will  deny  it. 
But  is  it  wrong  for  us  to  be  prompted  to  ^action  by 
those  considerations  which  God  himself  urges  upon 
us?  If  he  attempts  to  excite  our  fears  and  hopes 
to  prompt  us  to  a  course  of  self-preservation,  can  it 
be  wrong  for  us  to  be  influenced  by  this  means, 
and  in  this  direction  ?  I  should  hardly  know  how 
to  hold  an  argument  with  a  man  that  should  assert 
this — and  yet  this  sentiment  is  implied  in  the  ob- 
jection now  under  examination.  Besides,  these  acts 
conditional  to  regeneration  are  not  wholly,  perhaps 
not  chiefly,  from  motives  of  personal  interest.  Our 
moral  feelings  have  a  great  part  in  this  work.  And 
it  is  principally  by  arousing  an  accusing  conscience 
that  fear  and  hope  aid  in  the  performance  of  the 
conditions  of  regeneration.  But  whatever  propor- 
tion there  may  be  of  the  ingredients  of  personal 
fear  and  hope  in  the  feelings  that  enter  into  this 
conditional  action  of  the  mind,  it  is  certain  that  the 
fear  of  the  consequences  of  sin,  and  the  hope  to 
escape  them,  are  not  themselves  criminal,  much  less 
then  are  they  capable  of  rendering  a  complex  state 
of  the  mind,  of  which  they  are  but  a  part,  unaccep- 
table to  God.  Indeed,  this  objection  to  a  mental  act, 
merely  because  it  is  prompted  by  self-love,  has 
always  been  to  me  a  matter  of  wonder.  Selfish- 
ness is  a  term  which  we  generally  use  in  a  bad 
11* 


250  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

sense,  and  we  mean  by  it  that  form  of  self-love  that 
leads  us  to  seek  our  own  gratification  at  the  expense 
and  the  injury  of  others,  or  in  opposition  to  the  will 
of  God.  But  that  self-love  which  leads  us  to  seek 
our  own  highest  interests,  and  especially  our  eternal 
interests,  without  injury  to  others,  and  in  accordance 
with  the  divine  will,  is  never  thought  criminal,  I  be- 
lieve, except  where  one  has  a  particular  system  to 
support  by  such  a  notion.  But  that  system  is  itself  of 
a  doubtful  character  which  requires  such  an  argu- 
ment to  sustain  it. 

4.  Another  objection  which  has  been  made  to  one 
of  the  principles  above  laid  down  is,  that  "  it  is  the 
province  of  the  will  to  control  the  affections,  and  not 
the  affections  the  will ;  and  that  the  will  always 
possesses  the  power  to  do  this,  even  in  an  unregene- 
rate  state."  If  so,  then  man  has  power,  at  any  time, 
by  an  act  of  the  will,  to  love  God.  Let  him  try — let 
that  unholy  sinner  try.  Can  he  succeed  ?  You  say 
perhaps,  for  so  the  Calvinists  have  said,  "  He  can  if  he 
will ;"  that  is,  he  can  will  to  love  God  if  he  does  will 
to  love  God  !  This  is  no  great  discovery,  surely,  and 
it  is  certainly  no  proper  answer  to  the  question.  I 
ask  it  again.  Can  he,  by  a  direct  act  of  the  will,  love 
God  ?  Do  you  say,  by  varying  the  form  of  the  answer, 
"  He  can  if  he  chooses  ?"  If  you  mean  by  choice  the 
act  of  the  will,  this  is  the  same  answer  over  again,  the 
folly  of  which  is  so  apparent.  But  if  you  mean  by 
choice  the  desires  of  his  heart,  then  your  answer 
amounts  to  this :  If  the  desires  of  the  heart  are  in 
favour  of  loving  God,  he  can,  by  an  act  of  the  will, 
love  him.  But  if  the  desires  of  the  heart  are  in 
favour  of  loving  God,  the  love  is  already  begotten, 
and  there  is  no  need  of  the  act  of  the  will  to  produce 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  251 

it.  In  that  case  your  proposition  would  be,  the  sinner 
can  love  God  by  an  act  of  the  will,  if  he  loves  him- ! 
the  absurdity  of  which  is  too  evident  to  require 
comment.  It  is  thus  that  the  coils  of  error  run 
into  each  other  in  endless  circles. 

But,  perhaps,  to  help  the  argument,  if  possible,  it 
may  be  urged  that  the  will  can  decide  in  favour  of  a 
closer  examination,  and  by  voluntary  attention  may 
get  such  strong  perceptions  of  truth  as  will  give  it  the 
voluntary  power  over  the  heart.  To  this  I  would 
reply,  in  the  first  place,  this  is  giving  up  the  argu- 
ment, it  is  acknowledging  that  certain  preparatory  acts 
of  the  will  are  necessary  before  the  mind  can  love 
God — hut  this  is  conditional  regeneration.  And  it 
may  be  farther  maintained,  in  opposition  to  this  senti- 
ment, that  the  mere  perception  of  truth,  even  when 
united  with  conscience,  and  personal  fear  and  hope,  is 
not  sufficient  to  give  the  will  power  over  the  unre- 
newed affections.  In  proof  of  this,  Scripture  might 
be  adduced;  but  reserving  the  Scripture  argument 
for  the  present,  we  may  quote  good  Calvinistic 
authority  in  proof  that  the  will  may  be  inthralled  by 
the  affections.  Professor  Upham  says,  "Whenever 
there  is  a  want  of  harmony  in  the  mind,  there  is 
always  a  greater  or  less  degree  of  inthralment."  And 
then  he  proceeds  to  show  how  the  mind  may  be 
enslaved  by  the  ^^ro/J'e/iszVie^,  appetites^  affections^ 
and  passions.  He  illustrates,  for  example,  the  pro- 
gress of  this  inthralment  in  the  case  of  an  appetite 
for  strong  drink  ;  which,  "  like  a  strong  man  armed, 
violently  seizes  the  will,  binds  it  hand  and  foot,  and 
hurls  it  into  the  dust."  Again  he  says,  "  There  are 
not  unfrequently  cases  where  the  propensities  and 
passions  have   become   so  intense,    after    years    of 


252  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

repetition,  as  to  control,  or  in  other  words,  inthral  the 
voluntary  power  almost  entirely."  (Treatise  on  the 
Will.)  Dr.  Griffin,  also  an  able  Calvinistic  writer, 
says,  in  decided  terms,  "  The  judgment  of  the  intellect 
and  the  decisions  of  the  will  are  both  controlled  by 
the  heart." 

The  idea  of  the  inthralment  of  the  will,  however, 
may  be  objected  to  on  another  ground,  viz.,  that,  if 
admitted,  it  would  destroy  accountability,  since  none 
are  accountable  for  what  they  cannot  avoid.  But  I 
have  not  said  they  cannot  avoid  it ;  neither  have  I 
said  we  are  not  voluntary  either  in  keeping  or  dis- 
carding the  unholy  heart.  I  assert  directly  the  con- 
trary. Every  probationer  decides  whether  he  will  be 
holy  or  happy.  But  his  decisions  to  be  holy  are 
effectual  only  when  he  seeks  that  from  God  which  he 
cannot  do  for  himself.  Then,  and  then  only,  will 
God  give  him  the  victory  over  the  old  man,  with  the 
deceitful  lusts  of  the  heart.  But  this  is  conditional 
regeneratioji. 

Having  said  thus  much  in  defence  of  the  philosophy 
of  the  principles  laid  down,  the  way  is  prepared  to 
show  that  they  accord  with  Scripture,  and  to  defend 
them  with  the  doctrine  which  we  build  upon  them 
from  the  supposed  Scripture  objections  which  have 
been  urged  against  them.  But  this  will  furnish 
matter  for  another  number. 


NUMBER  XV. 

REGENERATION,    CONTINUED. 

In  proposing  and  vindicating,  in  the  preceding 
number,  those  views  of  the  philosophy  of  mind  which 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  253 

are  supposed  to  throw  light  upon  the  process  of  re- 
generation, it  was  not  intended  to  be  intimated  that  a 
knowledge  of  this  theory  is  necessary  in  order  to  ex- 
perience the  new  birth.  In  the  practical  purposes  of 
life  men  do  not  ordinarily  stop  to  analyze  their  mental 
states  before  they  judge,  feel,  and  act  They  have 
the  practical  use  of  their  mental  faculties,  and  that 
suffices.  In  this  way  the  most  ignorant  and  the  most 
unphilosophical  may  be  saved.  Why,  then,  it  may 
be  asked,  is  it  necessary  to  enter  into  this  analysis  at 
all?  To  this  it  may  be  replied,  that  whenever  we 
can  trace  the  adaptation  of  the  provisions  of  grace  and 
the  reason  of  the  divine  requirements  to  the  known 
facts  and  laws  of  the  human  mind,  it  will  strengthen 
our  confidence  in  the  economy  of  grace,  increase  our 
admiration  of  the  wisdom  and  goodness  of  God,  and 
sharpen  our  weapons  of  defence  against  the  cavils  and 
assaults  of  an  opposing  skepticism.  But  especially  is 
this  philosophical  examination  necessary  whenever  a 
superficial  or  an  erroneous  philosophy  would  force 
upon  us  an  erroneous  theology.  The  metaphysical 
mist  with  which  some  theories  have  veiled  the  doctrine 
of  regeneration,  and  the  delusive  and  distorted  views 
that  have  resulted  from  this  obscuration,  may  be  re- 
moved and  corrected  by  the  radiance  of  a  pure  philo- 
sophy. But  as  human  philosophy  is,  at  best,  more 
likely  to  err  on  these  subjects  than  revelation,  the 
former  should  always  be  corrected  or  confirmed  by 
the  latter.  How  is  it  in  the  case  under  examination  ? 
How  do  the  assumed  opinions  correspond  with 
revelation  ? 

Let  us  glance  again  at  our  positions.  The  principal 
points  assumed  are — that  there  is  often  a  conflict 
between  the  feelings  of  moral  obligation  on  the  one 


254  CALA-^INISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

hand,  enlightened  as  they  are  by  reason  and  by  grace, 
sanctioned  as  they  are  by  fear  and  hope,  and  the 
unholy  affections  on  the  other ;  that  under  the 
promptings  of  the  moral  feelings  the  will  frequently 
puts  forth  its  strength  to  resist  and  subdue  the  unholy 
affections,  but  in  every  such  case  the  effort  fails  when 
unaided  by  the  sanctifying  grace  of  God — and  that 
victory  is  finally  gained  by  a  conditional  act  of  the 
will,  through  which,  or  on  occasion  of  which,  God 
subdues  the  passions  and  changes  the  heart.  These 
views  have  been  vindicated,  as  being  in  accordance 
with  the  philosophy  of  mind.  The  question  now  is, 
Are  they  sustained  by  Scripture  ?  I  answer,  Yes, 
?nost  clearly. 

If  the  Apostle  Paul  had  attempted,  by  a  set  argu- 
ment, to  illustrate  and  affirm  these  views,  he  could  not 
have  done  it  better  or  more  explicitly  than  he  has 
done  in  the  latter  part  of  the  7th,  and  the  first  part  of 
the  8th  chapters  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  "  I 
see."  says  the  apostle,  "  another  law  in  my  members, 
warring  against  the  law  of  my  mind,  and  bringing  me 
into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin,  which  is  in  my 
members."  The  laio  of  sin  in  his  members  was 
undoubtedly  the  carnal  mind,  the  unholy  affections. 
These  toarred  against  the  law  of  his  mind,  his  en- 
lightened judgment,  his  feelings  of  moral  obligation  ; 
and  in  this  warfare  the  former  were  victorious,  and 
carried  captive  the  will ;  so  that  '•  the  good  that  he 
would,  he  did  not,  and  the  evil  that  he  would  not,  that 
he  did."  "  To  will  was  present  with  him,"  but  ''  how 
to  perform,  he  knew  not."  See  the  entire  passage,  for 
it  beautifully  illustrates  our  whole  theory.  Here  is 
the  conflict,  the  struggle  between  conscience  and  sin  : 
here  is  pointed  out  the  seat  of  sin.  viz.,  the  "flesh"  or 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  255 

carnal  mind,  which  is  but  another  name  for  the  un- 
sanctified  affections  and  appetites  ;  here  is  the  will 
struggling  to  turn  the  contest  on  the  side  of  duty,  but 
struggUng  in  vain  ;  every  effort  results  in  defeat — ids 
taken  captive^  and  overcome.  Despair  finally  settles 
down  upon  the  mind,  as  far  as  personal  strength  is 
concerned,  and  the  anxious  soul  looks  abroad  for  help, 
and  cries  out,  "  Who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body 
of  this  death  ?"  Then  it  is  that  deliverance  comes  ! 
Jesus  Christ,  the  Saviour  of  sinners,  sets  him  free  ! 

Professor  Stuart,  of  Andover,  himself  a  Calvinist, 
has  shown  most  conclusively,  what  Arminians  have 
long  contended  for,  that  this  portion  of  revelation 
refers  specifically  to  the  work  of  regeneration.  But 
whether  this  be  granted  by  every  Calvinist  or  not,  no 
man  can  deny  but  that  the  grand  philosophical  prin- 
ciples heretofore  contended  for  are  here  fully  illus- 
trated— the  same  division  of  the  mind — the  same 
conflict — the  same  tlualdom  of  the  will^  and  the  same 
deliverance^  through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 

The  same  principles,  in  part  at  least,  are  recognised 
in  Gal.  v,  17,  "  For  the  flesh  lusteth  against  the  Spirit, 
and  the  Spirit  against  the  flesh ;  and  these  are  con- 
trary the  one  to  the  other,  so  that  ye  cannot  do  the 
things  that  ye  wovldP  In  short,  all  those  passages 
where  the  difficulty  of  subduing  the  carnal  mind,  of 
keeping  the  body  under,  of  crucifying  the  old  man, 
all  those  passages  that  speak  of  a  warfare^  an  internal 
conflict^  and  the  like,  recognise  the  principles  here 
contended  for. 

These  principles,  so  frequently  adverted  to  in  the 
Scriptures,  are  proved  to  be  in  exact  conformity  with 
experience.  Who  that  has  passed  through  this  change 
but  remembers  this  conflict,  this  war  in  the  members  ? 


356  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

Who  but  recollects  how  his  best  resolutions  were 

broken  as  often  as  made  :  and  how,  after  various  and 

vigorous  efforts,  his  heart  seemed  to  himself  to  grow 

worse  and  worse  ?  He  found  secret  treason  lurking  in 

his  bosom  even  when  he  was  trying  to  repent  of  his 

past  disloyalty. 

"  The  more  he  strove  against  its  power, 
He  felt  the  guilt  and  sin  the  more." 

Every  additional  effort  sunk  him  apparently  but  the 
lower  in  "  the  horrible  pit  and  miry  clay,"  until  "  the 
Lord  heard  his  cry^^  until  "  the  Lord  brought  him  up, 
and  set  his  feet  upon  a  rock,  and  established  his  goings, 
and  put  a  new  song  in  his  mouth." 

That  the  Scriptures  speak  of  a  conditional  action 
of  the  mind,  preparatory  to  the  work  of  regeneration, 
appears  from  express  passages,  as  well  as  from  the 
general  tenor  of  that  numerous  class  of  scriptures 
which  enjoin  duty  upon  the  sinner,  and  predicate 
justification  and  salvation  upon  those  duties.  John 
i,  12,  has  already  been  quoted  and  commented  upon, 
in  which  the  new  birth  is  suspended  upon  receiving 
Christ,  or  helieving  on  his  name.  The  many  cases 
of  healing  the  body,  by  Christ,  are  evident  illustrations 
of  the  healing  of  the  soul.  In  fact,  we  have  good 
reasons  for  supposing  that,  in  most  of  these  cases  at 
least,  the  soul  and  body  were  healed  at  the  same  time ; 
and  this  was  always  on  the  condition  of  asking  and 
helieving.  John  iii,  14,  15,  '•  As  Moses  lifted  up  the 
serpent  in  the  wilderness,  even  so  must  the  Son  of 
man  be  Ufted  up;  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him 
should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life."  Here 
our  Saviour  shows  the  analogy  between  the  cure  of 
the  Israelites  by  looking  at  the  brazen  serpent,  and 
of  sinners  by  looking  to  Christ.     But  how  were  the 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  257 

Israelites  healed  ?  By  the  conditional  act  of  looking 
at  the  brazen  serpent.  So  looking  at  Christ  is  the 
condition  of  healing  the  soul.  Take  away  this  con- 
dition and  the  whole  analogy  is  destroyed.  Let  this 
condition  be  understood,  and  the  text  will  accord  with 
others,  equally  expressive  of  conditions.  "  Look  unto 
me  and  be  ye  saved,  all  the  ends  of  the  earth."  "  Seek 
first  the  kingdom  of  God  and  his  righteousness." 
'■'  Seek  the  Lord  while  he  may  be  found."  God  hath 
determined  that  all  nations  "  should  seek  the  Lord,  if 
haply  they  might  feel  after  him,  and  find  him,  though 
he  be  not  far  from  every  one  of  us."  Will  any  one 
pretend  to  say  that  this  looking  and  seeking  implies 
regeneration  ?  This  is  mere  assumption  ;  where  is  the 
proof?  Who  would  ever  infer  this  idea  from  the  Scrip- 
tures themselves  ?  What !  is  the  sinner  regenerated 
before  the  malady  of  the  soul,  the  poisonous  bite  of 
sin,  is  healed  ?  Has  he  found  the  Lord  before  he  has 
sought  him?  And  must  he  seek  after  he  has  found  him? 
The  kingdom  of  God  is  religion  in  the  soul — it  is 
"  righteousness,  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost ;" 
and  when  we  are  regenerated,  we  have  it  in  possession, 
and  have  therefore  no  need  to  seek  it.  But  we  are 
commanded  to  seek  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  this,  there- 
fore, must  be  a  work  preparatory  to,  and  conditional 
of  regeneration.  "  Come  unto  me  all  ye  that  labour 
and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest." 
"  Take  my  yoke  upon  you,"  <fec.  To  be  restless^  and 
not  to  have  on  the  yoke  of  Christ,  is  to  be  unregene- 
rate ;  but  such  are  to  come  and  take  the  yoke,  and 
then,  and  on  that  condition,  they  will  find  rest  to  their 
souls.  "  The  Spirit  and  the  bride  say.  Come,  &c., 
and  whosoever  will,  let  him  come  and  take  of  the 
water  of  life  freely."     To  take  of  the  water  of  life  is 


258  CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY. 

to  be  regenerated  :  but  to  this  end  we  must  come^  and 
we  must  first  will  in  order  to  come.  "  Behold,  I  stand 
at  the  door  and  knock ;  if  any  man  hear  my  voice  and 
open  the  door,  I  will  come  in  and  sup  with  him,  and 
he  with  me."  Before  Christ  is  in  the  soul,  there  is 
no  regeneration  ;  but  before  he  will  come  in,  he 
knocks,  and  the  sinner  must  first  hear^  and  then  o'pen 
the  door^  and  on  this  condition  Christ  comes  in  and 
imparts  his  grace. 

But  it  is  useless  to  proceed  farther  in  quoting  parti- 
cular texts.  They  might  be  extended  indefinitely, 
with  a  force  and  pertinency  that  cannot  be  evaded  : 
all  going  to  establish  the  fact  that  the  work  of  grace 
on  the  heart  is  conditional. 

Will  any  one  pretend  to  deny  that  the  unregene- 
rate  sinner  is  called  upon  to  seek,  ask,  repent,  believe, 
(fee?  And  what  do  such  scriptures  mean?  The  acts 
of  the  mind  here  enjoined  must  constitute  regenera- 
tion, or  they  must  follow  regeneration  as  an  effect  of 
that  work,  or  they  must  precede  it  as  a  necessary  and 
required  condition.  To  say  that  these  acts  are  the 
very  definition  of  regeneration  itself — are  only  syno- 
nymous terms  to  express  this  renewal  of  the  heart,  is 
to  make  regeneration  consist  in  exercises  merely — is 
in  fact  to  make  it  the  sinner's  appropriate  and  exclu- 
sive work  ;  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  this  com- 
manding the  sinner  to  ask,  <fec.,  is  nothing  more  nor 
less  than  a  promise  that  God  will  ask,  seek,  repent, 
and  believe  for  him  !  But  this  will  hardly  be  pretended ; 
and  the  idea  that  these  acts  do  themselves  constitute 
the  new  birth,  has  already  been  seen  to  be  defective 
and  indefensible. 

To  suppose  that  these  acts  follow  regeneration,  as 
an  effect  or  fruit  of  the  change  itself,  is  to  deny  them 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  259 

that  position  and  relation  in  which  they  are  actually- 
placed  by  the  word  of  God.  It  makes  one  seek,  after 
he  has  found ;  ask,  after  he  has  received  ;  repent  and 
believe,  after  he  is  possessed  of  that  salvation,  to  obtain 
which  these  duties  are  enjoined.  The  phraseology, 
to  suit  this  theory,  should  evidently  be  of  an  entirely 
different  character.  When  the  sinner  asks  what  he 
shall  do  to  be  saved,  the  answer  should  be — "  Nothing 
until  God  renews  the  heart ;  and  then,  as  a  fruit  of 
this,  you  will  of  course  seek,  ask,  believe,''^  <fec.  If, 
indeed,  the  sinner  is  to  do  nothing  until  God  renews 
him,  why  is  it  necessary  that  he  should  first  be 
awakened?  Why  is  the  command  addressed  to  him 
at  all  ?  Why  does  not  the  Holy  Spirit  immediately 
renew  the  heart,  while  the  transgressor  is  stupid  in 
his  wickedness,  instead  of  calling  after  him  to  aivake, 
Jlee,  and  escape  for  his  life  ?  Do  you  say  you  can 
give  no  other  reason  than  that  it  pleases  God  to  take 
this  course  with  the  sinner,  and  to  call  up  his  atten- 
tion to  the  subject  before  he  renews  him*?  I  answer, 
then  it  pleases  God  that  there  should  be  certain  pre- 
paratory  acts  of  the  mind  in  order  to  regeneration : 
and  this  is  in  fact  admitting  the  principle  for  which 
we  contend,  and  this  more  especially  if  it  be  acknow- 
ledged, as  it  evidently  must  be,  that  these  preparatory 
mental  states  or  acts  are,  to  any  extent,  voluntary. 
Thus,  not  only  is  the  absurdity  of  making  these  acts 
the  result  of  regeneration  most  apparent;  but  in 
tracing  out  the  consistent  meaning  and  practical 
bearing  of  those  scriptures  that  are  addressed  to  the 
unconverted,  we  find  them  establishing  the  third  alter- 
native, that  these  acts  of  the  mind  are  preparatory  to 
regeneration,  and  are  the  prescribed  conditions  on 
which  God  will  accomplish   the  work.     Thus  the 


360  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

Scripture  argument  is  found  to  confirm  the  philoso- 
phical view  of  the  subject,  and  both  are  strengthened 
by  Christian  experience.  The  doctrine  of  condi- 
tional regeneration,  therefore,  is  confirmed  by  a  three- 
fold argument,  no  part  of  which,  it  is  believed,  can  be 
easily  overthrown.  Against  it,  however,  there  are 
several  strong  objections  urged,  which  have  already 
been  mentioned,  and  which  we  are  now  prepared  to 
hear  and  examine. 

1.  It  has  been  objected,  that  to  admit  human 
agency  and  co-operation  in  this  change,  is  to  deny 
salvation  by  grace.  But  how  does  this  appear  ?  Sup- 
pose the  very  conditions  are  by  a  gracious  appoint- 
ment— suppose  the  operations  of  a  gracious  system 
are  in  this  way  better  adapted  to  a  moral  govern- 
ment— suppose  this  additional  action  of  the  mind  to 
be  itself  the  result  of  a  gracious  influence,  enlightening 
the  understanding,  and  quickening  and  arousing  the 
moral  sense — finally,  suppose  these  conditions  not  to 
be  efficient,  much  less  7neritorioiis  causes,  by  which 
the  mind  either  changes  itself,  or  renders  itself  more 
morally  deserving  of  the  divine  favour — I  say  sup- 
pose all  this,  and  then  show,  if  you  can,  how  such 
conditions  can  detract  at  all  from  the  grace  of  this 
salvation. 

2.  It  has  been  objected,  that  "  since  man  never  is 
what  he  ought  to  be  until  he  is  renewed  and  made 
holy,  therefore  any  act  short  of  that  which  either  con- 
stitutes or  implies  regeneration  cannot  be  acceptable 
to  God — God  cannot  consistently  approve  of  any  step 
that  falls  short  of  man's  duty.  It  is  his  duty  to  be 
holy,  and  therefore  any  thing  short  of  this  is  sin,  and 
consequently  cannot  be  accepted  as  a  condition." 
We  should  be  careful  to  discriminate  between  things 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  261 

closely  related,  and  yet  actually  distinct  from  each 
other.  It  is  one  thing  to  be  pleased  with  the  charac- 
ter of  the  mind  as  a  whole,  in  view  of  its  relations  to 
the  divine  law  and  its  necessary  qualifications  for 
heaven,  and  another  thing  to  be  pleased  with  a  parti- 
cular mental  state,  or  conditional  volition,  in  reference 
to  its  adaptation  to  a  proposed  end,  or  a  specific  object. 
For  instance:  the  Calvinists  think  that  an  awaken ^,d 
and  an  anxiously  inquiring  sinner  is  in  a  more  suit- 
able state  of  mind  to  receive  the  blessing  of  regenera- 
tion than  one  perfectly  stupid  and  thoughtless.  If  they 
do  not,  why  do  they  try  to  bring  sinners  to  thought- 
fulness?  Why  do  they  try  to  awaken  them  to  a 
sense  of  their  danger,  and  make  them  tremble  under 
the  view  of  the  divine  displeasure  ?  Or  why  do  they 
call  their  attention  to  gospel  provisions  and  a  cruci 
fied  Saviour?  Is  not  this  a  preparatory  process? 
And  have  they  the  divine  warrant  for  such  a  course? 
Is  this  the  method  which  the  divine  Being  takes  to 
save  his  rebellious  subjects  ?  Then,  doubtless,  this 
method  is  well  pleasing  to  him  :  and  in  reference  to 
this  specific  end.  he  has  in  view,  he  is  pleased  with 
each  successive  step  in  the  process.  He  is  pleased 
when  the  sinner  pays  attention  to  the  word ;  he  is 
pleased  when  he  is  awakened,  and  when  he  begins  to 
tremble  and  inquire,  "  What  shall  I  do  to  be  saved  ?" 
This  is  just  as  he  would  have  it,  and  just  as  he  de- 
signed ;  although  the  entire  character  of  the  sinner  is 
not  acceptable  to  him  until  he  is  made  holy.  The  very 
principle,  then,  objected  to  by  the  Calvinists  is  recog- 
nised by  their  own  theory  and  practice.  Now  if  we 
say  God  is  pleased  to  accept  of  the  sinner's  prayer, 
and  faith,  and  sorrow  for  sin,  as  a  condition  of  what 
he  will  do  for  him,  what  propriety  is  there  in  replying, 


262  CALVINISTIC   CONTROVERSY. 

God  cannot  accept  of  any  thing  short  of  a  holy  heart  ? 
We  know  he  cannot  approve  of  a  heart  until  it  is 
holy ;  but  he  can  approve  of  certain  feehngs  and 
voHtions  as  suited,  according  to  the  divine  appoint- 
ment, to  be  the  condition  on  which  he  will  make  the 
heart  holy.  Do  you  ask  on  what  ground  he  accepts 
of  this?  I  answer,  on  the  ground  of  the  merits  of 
Christ;  the  ground  on  which  the  whole  process 
rests.  God  does  not  accept  of  the  prayer,  repentance, 
and  faith  of  the  regenerate,  because  they  are  rege 
nerate,  and  by  reason  of  their  holiness ;  but  their 
acceptance  is  wholly  and  continually  through  Christ. 
Through  the  same  medium  and  merits  the  prayer  ol 
the  inquiring  sinner  is  heard  and  answered. 

If  your  servant  had  left  you  unjustly,  and  deserted 
the  service  he  was  obligated  to  perform,  and  you 
should  finally  tell  him,  if  he  would  return  and  resume 
his  duties  you  would  forgive  the  past,  and  accept  of 
him  for  the  future,  would  it  be  inconsistent  to  say, 
you  were  pleased  when  he  began  to  listen  to  the  pro- 
posal, and  pleased  when  he  took  the  first  and  every 
succeeding  step,  as  being  suitable  and  necessary  to  the 
end  proposed,  although,  in  view  of  his  duty  and 
your  claim,  you  would  not  be  pleased  with  him,  as 
your  acceptable  servant,  until  he  was  actually  and 
faithfully  employed  in  your  service  ? 

Let  it  not  be  inferred  from  the  above  that  I  advocate 
a  gradual  conversion.  I  do  not.  I  believe  when  God 
renews  the  heart  he  does  it  at  once ;  but  the  prepara- 
tory steps  are  nevertheless  indispensable  tothe  accom 
plishment  of  this  work.  And  God  is  well  pleased  with 
the  first  step  of  attention  on  the  part  of  the  sinner,  and 
with  every  succeeding  step  of  prayer,  anxious  inquiry, 
feeling  of  moral  obligation,  purpose  to  forsake  sin, 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  263 

looking  after  and  attempting  to  believe  in  Christ,  not 
because  these  are  all  that  he  requires,  but  because 
they  are  the  necessary  preparatives  for  what  is  to 
follow. 

3.  The  foregoing  remarks  will  prepare  the  way  to 
meet  a  similar  objection  to  the  last,  and  one  to  sorne 
extent  the  same  in  substance.  It  is  this  :  "  Are  these 
conditional  acts  of  the  mind  holy  or  unholy  exercises  ? 
If  holy,  then  the  work  of  regeneration  is  accomplished 
already,  and  therefore  these  cannot  be  the  conditions 
of  that  change.  If  unholy,  then  they  can  be  no  other 
than  offensive  to  a  holy  God,  and  therefore  cannot  be 
conditions  well  pleasing  to  him."  In  addition  to  what 
has  been  already  said  having  a  bearing  upon  this 
question,  it  may  be  said  that  the  terms  holy  and  un- 
holy may  be  equivocal,  as  used  in  this  connection ; 
and  thus  the  supposed  dilemma  would  be  more  in 
words  than  in  fact,  more  in  appearance  than  in  reality. 
This  dilemma  is  urged  in  the  argument  under  the 
idea  that  there  can  be  but  the  two  kinds  of  exercises, 
holy  and  unholy.  And  this  may  be  true  enough,  only 
let  us  understand  what  is  meant.  If  by  holy  exer- 
cises are  meant  those  in  which  the  entire  feeling  is  on 
the  side  of  God,  I  readily  answer,  No,  the  mind  before 
regeneration  has  no  such  exercises.  If  by  holiness  is 
meant,  that  the  judgment  and  conscience  are  on  the 
side  of  truth,  I  answer,  Yes,  this  is  the  state  of  the 
mind  when  it  is  truly  awakened  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
and  by  divine  truth.  It  is  entirely  immaterial  to  me, 
therefore,  whether  the  objector  call  the  exercise  holy 
or  unholy,  provided  he  draw  no  special  inferences 
from  the  use  of  a  general  term  that  the  positions  here 
assumed  do  not  authorize.  Sure  I  am  that  the  objector 
cannot  say  there  is  nothing  in  the  exercises  of  the 


264  CALVIMSTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

unregenerate.  awakened  sinner,  such  as  God  would 
have  for  the  end  proposed,  until  he  is  prepared  to  say- 
that  a  fear  of  the  consequences  of  sin,  an  enlightened 
judgment,  the  remorse  of  conscience  for  the  past,  the 
feelings  of  obligation  for  the  future,  and  the  hope  of 
victory  over  sin  through  Christ,  all  combining  to 
induce  the  sinner  to  flee  for  refuge,  and  lay  hold  upon 
the  hope  set  before  him,  are  all  wrong,  and  not  as  God 
would  have  them.  But  when  a  man  is  prepared  to 
say  this,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  he  could  be  reasoned 
with  farther,  for  he  would  seem  to  have  given  up 
reason  and  Scripture.  And  yet  who  does  not  know 
that  these  are  the  exercises  of  the  soul  awakened  to  a 
sense  of  sin  and  its  consequences,  even  while  as  yet 
his  unholy  affections  hang  upon  him  like  a  body  of 
death  7 — Yea,  who  does  not  know  that  it  is  this  body 
of  death,  from  which  he  cannot  escape,  and  this  ab- 
horrence of  sin  and  its  consequences,  that  rein  him 
up,  and  incline  him  to  a  surrender  of  his  soul  into  the 
hands  of  Christ,  from  whom,  as  a  consequence,  he 
receives  power  to  become  a  son  of  God.  *'  But  what 
is  the  motive  ?"  it  is  asked ;  "  is  not  this  unholy  ?"  And 
pray  what  does  this  inquiry  mean?  If  by  motive  is 
meant  the  moving  cause  out  of  the  mind,  that  cannot 
be  unholy,  for  it  is  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  holy  word 
of  God,  that  are  thus  urging  the  sinner  to  Christ.  If 
by  motive  is  meant  the  judgments  and  feelings  of  the 
mind,  that  prompt  to  these  voluntary  efforts  to  avoid 
sin  and  its  consequences,  these  are  the  enlightened 
understanding  and  the  feelings  of  obligation,  already 
alluded  to,  which,  I  repeat,  the  objector  is  welcome  to 
call  holy  or  unholy  as  he  pleases  ;  all  I  claim  is,  they 
are  what  God  approves  of,  and  are  the  necessary  con- 
ditions of  his  subsequent  work  of  renewing  the  heart. 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  265 

But  perhaps  it  may  be  asked  here,  Is  not  the  sinner, 
in  the  performance  of  these  conditions,  partly  con- 
verted ?  I  answer,  this  again  depends  entirely  upon 
what  you  mean  by  conversion.  If  by  conversion  you 
understand  the  whole  of  the  preparatory  work  of 
awakening  and  seeking,  as  well  as  the  change  of  the 
heart — then  of  course  you  would  say  he  is  partly 
converted.  If  you  mean  by  conversion  only  a  change 
of  views  and  a  consequent  change  of  purpose,  by 
which  the  sinner  determines  to  seek,  that  he  may  find 
the  pearl  of  great  price — the  blessing  of  a  new  heart 
and  of  forgiveness,  then  you  would  say  he  is  loholly 
'converted.  But  if  you  mean  by  conversion  tlie 
change  of  heart  itself,  the  washing  of  regeneration, 
and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  then  not  only  is 
not  the  work  done,  but  it  is  not  begun.  The  way  of 
the  Lord  is  prepared  and  the  renewal  will  follow. 

Thus  the  objections  that  have  been  thought  so 
formidable  against  the  doctrine  of  conditional  regene- 
ration are  found,  on  a  closer  inspection,  to  be  more 
in  appearance  than  in  reality.  They  receive  their 
influence,  as  objections,  rather  from  their  indefinite- 
ness  and  the  ambiguity  of  terms,  than  from  any  intrin- 
sic force. 

There  is,  however,  one  form  more  in  which  an 
objection  may  be  urged  in  a  general  way  against  the 
ideas  of  the  new  birth  here  advanced.  And  as  I  wish 
fearlessly  and  candidly  to  state  and  meet,  if  possible, 
every  difficulty,  it  will  be  necessary  to  touch  upon 
this.  It  may  be  urged  that  "  the  only  exercises  that 
can  be  claimed  as  conditions  of  regeneration  on  Bible 
grounds  are  repentance  and  faith  ;  for  '  repentance 
toward  God  and  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ'  are 
laid  at  the  foundation  of  all  gospel  requirements. 
12 


266  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

Whenever  the  awakened  sinner  came  to  the  apostles 
to  know  what  he  should  do  to  be  saved,  they  always 
met  him  with,  '  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and 
thou  shalt  be  saved.'  Whenever  the  apostles  went 
out  to  preach  the  gospel,  they  preached  'everywhere 
that  men  should  repent.'"  "But,"  continues  the 
objector,  "  if  repentance  and  faith  are  the  only  duties 
or  exercises  which  can  be  claimed  as  conditions,  it  is 
evident  there  are  no  such  conditions ;  for  repentance 
and  faith,  so  far  from  being  conditions  of  regeneration, 
are  either  the  new  birth  itself;  or  are  Christian  graces 
implying  the  new  birth." 

The  premises,  in  the  above  objection,  will  not  be 
denied.  Repentance  and  faith  are  supposed  to  be  the 
gospel  conditions  of  regeneration.  But  it  is  denied 
that  these  are  necessarily  regeneration  itself,  or  that 
they  imply  regeneration  in  any  other  sense  than  as 
antecedents  to  it.  There  are,  it  is  acknowledged,  a 
repentance  and  a  faith  that  are  Christian  graces,  and 
imply  the  new  birth.  This  is  the  faith  that  "  is  the 
substance  of  things  hoped  for."  It  is  that  principle 
of  spiritual  life  which  the  Christian  has  in  his  soul 
when  he  can  say,  "  The  life  that  I  now  live  I  live  by 
faith  in  the  Son  of  God."  This  is  that  repentance, 
also,  which  keeps  the  soul  continually  at  the  foot  of 
the  cross,  and  leads  it  constantly  to  feel, 

"  Every  moment,  Lord,  I  need 
The  merit  of  thy  death." 

But  because  repentance  and  faith  are  the  necessary 
characteristics  of  the  Christian,  and  because  they  are 
the  more  perfect  as  the  Christian  character  ripens,  it 
does  not  therefore  follow  that  there  are  no  repentance 
and  faith  conditional  to  the  new  birth.  The  very  fact 
that  repentance  and  faith  were  urged  by  Christ  and 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  267 

his  apostles,  as  the  initiatory  step  to  salvation,  proves 
the  opposite  of  this.  They  do  not  say,  Repent  and 
believe  the  gospel,  and  this  is  salvation,  but,  "  Repent 
and  believe,  and  ye  shall  (on  this  condition)  be  saved." 
And  surely  it  is  unnecessary  to  prove  here  that  salva- 
tion in  the  New  Testament  generally  means  a  meet- 
ness  for  heaven  or  holiness.  Our  blessed  Saviour 
was  called  Jesus,  because  he  saved  his  people  from 
their  sins. 

Besides,  it  may  be  well  argued,  that  faith  and  re- 
pentance are  acts  of  the  mind,  and  cannot  therefore  be 
considered  as  the  new  birth  itself,  unless  the  mind 
converts  itself,  especially  since  they  are  enjoined 
duties^  and  must  therefore  be  voluntary  acts.  It  is  no- 
where said  that  God  repents  and  believes  for  us  ;  but 
it  is  expressly  and  repeatedly  taught  that  God  renews 
us.  Repentance  and  faith,  then,  are  our  work,  but 
regeneration  is  his.  I  know  it  is  said  in  one  place, 
Acts  V,  31,  that  Christ  was  exalted  "  to  give  repent- 
ance to  Israel."  But  the  act  itself  of  repentance  can- 
not be  said  to  be  given.  This  would  be  an  absurdity. 
How  can  any  one  give  me  a  mental  act  7  Hence  Dr. 
Doddridge,  although  a  Calvinist,  very  candidly  and 
very  justly  remarks,  on  this  passage,  that  to  give  re- 
pentance signifies  "  to  give  place,  or  room  for  repent- 
ance," to  sustain  which  interpretation  he  quotes 
Josephus  and  others  who  use  the  phrase  in  this  sense. 
If  then  repentance  and  faith  are  enjoined  upon  us,  as 
our  duties,  and  if  they  are  everywhere  spoken  of  as 
prerequisites  in  the  work  of  salvation,  and  as  prepara- 
tory steps  and  conditions  to  the  process  of  holiness, 
how  can  it  be  otherwise  than  that  these  are  antecedent, 
in  the  order  of  nature,  to  regeneration  ? 

It  may  farther  be  argued,  in  support  of  this  view 


CALVIXISTIC  CO>'TROVERSY. 


of  faith  and  repentancGj  that  no  sin  can  be  forgiven 
until  repented  of— repentance,  therefore,  must  precede 
remission  of  sins.  This  I  suppose  Calvinists  allow, 
but  they  say  that,  in  the  order  of  nature,  the  heart  is 
renewed  before  sin  is  forgiven — and  that  repentance, 
therefore,  which  is  either  the  new  birth  itself,  or  the 
immediate  fruit  of  it,  is  a  condition  of  justification,  but 
not  of  regeneration.  If  this  be  correct,  then  the  soul 
IS  made  holy  before  it  is  forgiven.  But  St.  Paul  in- 
forms us,  Romans  iv,  5,  that  God  through  faith 
"  justifieth  the  ungodly ^  If  then  there  be  any  ante- 
cedence in  the  order  of  the  two  parts  of  the  work  of 
grace,  we  must  suppose  that  justification  has  the  pre- 
cedence, and  that  regeneration  follows,  and  hence  re- 
pentance and  faith  precede  regeneration.  Indeed,  I 
cannot  see  why  repentance  is  not  as  necessary  to  re- 
move the  sin  of  the  heart  as  to  forgive  the  sin  of  the 
life.  If  God  will  not  forgive  sin  without  repentance, 
will  he  renew  the  heart  without  it?  Has  he  any- 
where promised  this  ?  If  not,  but  if,  on  the  contrary, 
he  everywhere  seems  to  have  suspended  the  working 
out  of  our  salvation  in  ns,  upon  our  repentance,  then 
may  we  safely  conclude — nay,  then  we  must  neces- 
sarily believe  that  we  repent  in  order  to  be  renewed. 
The  same  may  be  said  of  faith.  Faith,  in  fact,  seems 
to  be  the  exclusive  channel  through  which  every 
gracious  effect  is  produced  upon  the  mind.  The 
sinner  cannot  be  awakened  without  faith,  for  it  pre- 
cedes every  judgment  in  favour  of  truth,  and  every 
motion  of  moral  feeling,  and  of  course  every  favour- 
able concurrence  of  the  will.  The  sinner  never  could 
throw  himself  upon  the  divine  mercy,  never  would 
embrace  Christ  as  his  Saviour,  until  he  believed. 
Hence  the  Scriptures  lay  such  great  stress  upon  faith, 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  269 

and  make  it  the  grand,  and  indeed  the  only  immediate 
condition  of  the  work  of  grace  upon  the  heart.  Re- 
pentance is  a  condition  only  remotely,  l?i  order  to 
justifying  faith  ;  agreeable  to  the  teaching  of  Christ, 
"  And  ye,  when  ye  had  heard,  afterward  repented  not 
that  ye  might  believe  on  him."  But  faith  is  neces- 
sary immediately^  as  that  mental  state  directly  ante- 
cedent to  the  giving  up  of  the  soul  into  the  hands  of 
divine  mercy.  And  shall  we  still  be  told  that  faith  is 
not  the  co\]dition  of  regeneration  ?  The  order  of  the 
work  seems  to  be — 1.  A  degree  of  faith  in  order  to 
repentance.  2.  Repentance,  in  order  to  such  an  in- 
crease of  faith  as  will  lead  the  soul  to  throw  itself 
upon  Christ.  3.  The  giving  up  of  the  soul  to  Christ 
as  the  only  ground  of  hope.  4.  The  change  of  heart 
by  the  efficient  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Now, 
on  whichever  of  these  four  stages  of  the  process,  ex- 
cept the  first,  the  objector  lays  his  finger  and  says, 
That  is  not  a  condition  of  regeneration,  for  it  is  re- 
generation itself,  it  will  be  seen  that  that  very  part, 
call  it  regeneration  or  what  you  will,  is  conditional. 
If,  for  instance,  he  fix  on  the  second  stage,  and  con- 
tend that  that  is  regeneration,  which  I  call  repentance 
in  order  to  regenerating  faith  ;  even  that  would  be 
conditional  regeneration,  for  this  repentance  is  pre- 
ceded by  faith — and  so  of  all  that  follow.  And  surely 
no  one  will  pretend  that  what  I  call  the  first  stage,  the 
faith  which  precedes  awakening  and  remorse  of  con- 
science, and  the  exciting  alternations  of  fear  and  hope 
in  the  anxious  and  inquiring  sinner,  is  regeneration. 
And  if  this  first  degree  of  faith  is  not  the  change,  then 
it  is  utterly  inconsistent  to  talk  of  unconditional  re- 
generation, for  this  faith  stands  at  the  head  of  all  that 
follows — it  is  a  mental  act  necessarily  preparatory  to 


470  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

the  whole  work.  And,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  it  is 
an  act  that  depends  upon  the  agency  of  the  will. 
Hence  we  are  brought  again  to  our  conclusion,  that 
the  change  called  the  new  birth  is  effected  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  on  the  ground  of  certain  conditional  acts  of 
him  who  is  the  subject  of  the  change. 

"  But  the  very  nature  of  repentance  and  of  faith, 
the  very  definition  of  the  two  mental  states  expressed 
by  these  terms,"  it  is  said,  "  proves  that  a  person,  to 
possess  them,  must  be  regenerate ;  or,  at  any  rate,  that 
these  states  cannot  be  conditions  of  regeneration,  to  be 
performed  by  the  sinner."  Let  us  attend  for  a  moment 
to  this  objection  in  detail. 

What  is  repentance  ?  "  It  is,"  say  some  Calvinistic 
writers,  "  a  change  of  7nind.  The  original  means 
this,  and  so  it  should  have  been  rendered ;  and  if  it 
had  been  so  rendered,  it  would  have  set  this  contro- 
versy at  rest."  But  what  if  we  should  grant  (what  I 
do  not  believe)  that  the  original  word  means  this,  and 
this  only,  still  it  would  not  follow  that  the  change  of 
mind  called  the  new  birth  is  meant  by  this  term.  A 
change  of  judgment  is  a  change  of  mind — a  change 
of  purpose  is  a  change  of  mind — any  change  of  the 
general  current  of  teeling,  such  as  that  from  careless- 
ness and  stupidity  in  sin  to  a  state  of  anxiety  and 
earnest  inquiry,  what  shall  I  do  to  be .  saved  ?  is  a 
change  of  mind.  And  such  a  change  of  mind  indis- 
pensably precedes  regeneration.  No  person  ever, 
from  being  a  careless,  hardened  sinner,  becomes  an 
anxious  and  earnest  inquirer  after  salvation,  without 
an  important  change  in  his  judgment,  moral  feeling, 
and  volitions.  Hence  this  definition  does  not  at  all 
help  the  objector,  unless  he  can  prove  that  the  Scrip- 
tures always  mean  by  this  term  that  change  which 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  271 

they  elsewhere  call  the  new  birth.  Indeed,  since  we 
have  already  shown  that  repentance  is  our  work,  and 
the  renewing  of  the  heart  exclusively  God's  work,  it 
follows  incontrovertibly,  that  the  change  of  mind 
called  repentance  is  not  the  new  birth. 

If  repentance  meant  that  change  of  mind  called 
the  new  birth,  then  the  regenerate  would  be  often 
horn  again,  and  that,  too,  without  backsliding ;  for 
those  who  are  growing  the  fastest  in  grace  repent  the 
most  constantly  and  the  most  deeply. 

Again  :  it  is  objected,  that  "  faith  is  not  a  voluntary 
state  of  mind,  and  therefore  cannot  be  considered  a 
condition,  performed  by  the  sinner,  in  order  to  rege- 
neration." To  believe  is  doubtless,  in  many  instances, 
perfectly  involuntary.  There  are  numerous  cases  in 
which  a  man  is  obliged  to  believe,  both  against  his  will 
and  against  his  desires.  There  are  other  cases,  again, 
in  which  the  will  is  not  only  much  concerned  in  be- 
lieving, but  in  which  its  action  is  indispensable  in 
order  to  believe.  And  the  faith  of  the  gospel  is  pre- 
eminently an  instance  of  this  kind.  "Faith,"  saith 
the  word,  "  cometh  by  hearing."  But  hearing  im- 
plies attention  ;  and  every  deliberate  act  of  attention 
implies  an  act  of  the  will.  A  man  can  no  more  leap, 
by  one  transition,  from  a  state  of  entire  carelessness 
into  the  faith  that  justifies  the  soul,  than  he  can  make 
a  world.  But  he  can  take  the  steps  that  lead  to  this 
result.  To  believe  to  the  saving  of  the  soul  requires' 
consider ation^  self-examination,  a  knowledge  of  the 
object  of  faith,  or  the  truth  to  be  believed,  earnest 
looking,  and  prayerful  seeking.  But  is  there  no  act 
of  the  will  in  all  these  ?  It  is  said  that  "  the  Spirit 
takes  of  the  things  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  shows  them 
unto  us."     And  it  is  doubtless  true,  that  the  soul 


272  CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY. 

cannot  get  such  a  view  of  Christ  as  encourages  him  to 
throw  himself  unreservedly  upon  the  mercy  of  the 
Saviour,  until  the  Spirit  makes,  to  the  mind's  eye, 
this  special  exhibition  of  the  "  things  of  Christ."  But 
when  does  he  do  this  7  Does  he  come  to  the  sinner 
when  he  is  careless  and  inattentive,  and  show  him 
the  things  of  Christ  ?  No  !  it  is  only  to  the  inquir- 
ing and  self-despairing  sinner,  who  is  earnestly 
groaning  out  the  sentiment  in  the  bitterness  of  his 
heart,  "  Who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of  this 
death?"  And  is  there  no  voluntary  action  in  all 
this? 

But  it  will  perhaps  be  wearisome  to  the  reader  to 
pursue  these  objections  farther.  I  should  not  have 
gone  so  fully  into  this  part  of  the  subject,  but  for  the 
fact,  that  this  sentiment  of  unconditional  regeneration 
is  considered  the  strong  hold  of  Calvinism.  This 
point  moreover  appears  to  have  been  but  slightly 
handled  by  most  of  the  Anticalvinistic  writers ;  and 
therefore  I  have  felt  it  the  more  necessary  to  attempt 
an  answer  to  all  the  most  important  arguments  that 
are  adduced  in  opposition  to  our  view  of  this  doctrine. 
I  am  far  from  thinking  I  have  done  the  subject  jus- 
tice, and  may  have  cause  perhaps  hereafter  to  acknow- 
ledge that  some  of  my  minor  positions  are  untenable, 
and  that  some  of  my  expressions  need  modifying  or 
explaining,  although  I  have  used  what  care  and  cir- 
'cumspection  my  time  and  circumstances  would  permit 
in  reference  not  only  to  the  doctrine  itself,  but  also  in 
reference  to  the  forms  of  expression.  And  as  it 
respects  the  leading  doctrines  here  inculcated,  I  repose 
upon  them  with  entire  confidence.  However  the 
theory  clashes  with  that  of  many  great  and  good  men, 
k  is  believed  to  be  the  only  theory  that  will  consist- 


CALVINISTIC    CONTROVERSY.  273 

ently  explain  the  practice  and  preaching  of  these  very- 
men.  It  is,  in  my  view,  the  only  theory  that  will 
satisfactorily  and  consistently  explain  those  great  and 
leading  principles  by  which  evangelical  Christians 
expect  to  convert  the  world  to  Christ.  And,  if  this 
be  true,  the  sooner  the  Christian  church  is  established 
on  this  foundation,  the  better.  We  have  already  seen 
that  a  mixture  of  error  in  the  essential  doctrines  leads 
to  various  mutations  from  extreme  to  extreme  of 
dangerous  heresy.  How  long  before  the  church  shall 
be  rooted  and  grounded  in  the  truth  !  May  He  who 
said.  Let  light  be  ;  and  LiGHT^jyAs,  hasten  that 
glorious  day ! 


THE    END. 


i 


DATE  DUE 


GAYLORD 


r-V^j 


>:m 

^^i*^ 


Princeton  Theological  Semmary-Speer 


1    1012  01002  9389 


**:P> :  ■■■■ 


a^ 


■mm. 


